Central venous port devices are indicated for patients, who need long-term intravenous therapy. Oncologic patients may require intermittent administration of chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, infusions, or blood transfusions. A venous port system is composed of a port chamber attached to a central catheter, which is implanted into the central venous system. The subcutaneous location of the catheter chamber improves the patients’ quality of life and the infection rate is lower than in non-totally implantable central venous devices. However, proper implantation, use, and care of a port system are important to prevent short- and long-term complications. Most common early complications (< 30 days) include venous malpositioning of catheter and perforation with arterial injury, pneumothorax, hemothorax, thoracic duct injury, or even cardiac tamponade. Delayed complications include infection, catheter thrombosis, vessel thrombosis and stenosis, catheter fracture with extravasation, or fracture with migration or embolization of catheter material. Radiologic imaging has become highly relevant in intra-procedural assessment and postoperative follow-up, for detection of possible complications and to plan intervention, e.g., in case of catheter migration. This pictorial review presents the normal imaging appearance of central venous port systems and demonstrates imaging features of short- and long-term complications.

Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy had a false-negative rate of 3.3% that diminished to 0.6% with experience. All false-negative findings could be prospectively identified because of failure to sample calcifications or imaging-histologic discordance.

At 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, highest diagnostic yield was achieved with 12 specimens per lesion, independent of mammographic appearance of the lesion. Even with standardized retrieval of 20 specimens per lesion, underestimation of disease still occurs.

No abstract

On the basis of the results of long-term follow-up, the authors noted a lesion miss rate of 1.1% and a false-negative rate of 1.0%, which indicate that NLOBB with stereotactic guidance is an accurate method for diagnosing breast lesions.

Our results indicate that both LCNBB and DVABB are reliable and safe techniques in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast lesions. However, the use of 14-G LCNBB seems to be advantageous in masses, the use of 11-G DVABB seems to be advantageous in asymmetric densities and calcifications.

Based on our results and those reported in the literature, 14-G USSB can be considered safe and reliable in the assessment of breast lesions.

Our results indicate that under evaluation of each individual case, a dose reduction of 50% to 75% can be recommended in postinterventional digital mammograms.