Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a diagnostic tool for breast cancer detection. Artefacts are observed in about 10% of CEDM examinations. Understanding CEDM artefacts is important to prevent diagnostic misinterpretation. In this article, we have described the artefacts that we have commonly encountered in clinical practice; we hope to ease the recognition and help troubleshoot solutions to prevent or minimise them.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the post biopsy management of breast lesions classified as lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) by core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). Methods The local ethics committee approved this retrospective study and for this type of study formal consent is not required. A total of 42 B3 lesions in 40 women aged 41–77 years were included in our study. All patients underwent CESM 2–3 weeks after the biopsy procedure and surgical excision was subsequently performed within 60 days of the CESM procedure. Three radiologists reviewed the images independently. The results were then compared with histologic findings. Results The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for confirmed demonstration of malignancy at CESM were 33.3%, 87.2%, 16.7%, and 94.4% for reader 1; 66.7%, 76.9%, 18.2%, and 96.7% for reader 2; 66.7%, 74.4%, 16.7%, and 96.7% for reader 3. Overall agreement on detection of malignant lesions using CESM among readers ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = .451–.696), for categorization of BPE from moderate to substantial (κ = .562–.711), and for evaluation of lesion intensity enhancement from fair to moderate (κ = .346–.459). Conclusion In cases of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 1, BI-RADS 2, or BI-RADS 3 results at CESM, follow-up or VAB rather than surgical biopsy might be performed.

Purpose The prevalence of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), the second most common type of breast cancer, accounts for 5%–15% of all invasive breast cancer cases. Its histological feature to spread in rows of single cell layers explains why it often fails to form a palpable lesion and the lack of sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound (US) to detect it. It also has a higher incidence of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease when compared to the other histological subtypes. The clinicopathologic features and outcomes of Invasive Ductolobular Carcinoma (IDLC) are very similar to the ILC. The purpose of our study is to assess the importance of MRI in the preoperative management and staging of patients affected by ILC or IDLC. Materials and Methods We identified women diagnosed with ILC or IDLC. We selected the patients who had preoperative breast MRI. For each patient we identified the areas of multifocal, multicentric, or contralateral disease not visible to standard exams and detected by preoperative MRI. We analyzed the potential correlation between additional cancer areas and histological cancer markers. Results Of the 155 women who met our inclusion criteria, 93 (60%) had additional cancer areas detected by MRI. In 61 women, 39,4% of the overall population, the additional cancer areas were confirmed by US/tomosynthesis second look and biopsy. Presurgical MRI staging changed surgical management in the 37,4% of the patients. Only six patients of the overall population needed a reoperation after the initial surgery. No statistically significant correlation was found between MRI overestimation and the presence of histological peritumoral vascular/linfatic invasion. No statistically significant correlation was found between additional cancer areas and histological cancer markers. Conclusions Our study suggests that MRI is an important tool in the preoperative management and staging of patients affected by lobular or ductolobular invasive carcinoma.

Background and Objectives Breast-conserving surgery represents the standard of care for the treatment of small breast cancers. However, there is a population of patients who cannot undergo the standard surgical procedures due to several reasons such as age, performance status, or comorbidity. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous US-guided laser ablation for unresectable unifocal breast cancer (BC). Methods Between December 2012 and March 2017, 12 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous US-guided laser ablation as radical treatment of primary inoperable unifocal BC. Results At median follow-up of 28.5 months (range 6-51), no residual disease or progression occurred; the overall success rate for complete tumor ablation was therefore 100%. No significant operative side effects were observed, with only 2 (13.3%) experiencing slight to mild pain during the procedure, and all patients complained of a mild dull aching pain in the first week after procedure. Conclusions Laser ablation promises to be a safe and feasible approach in those patients who are not eligible to the standard surgical approach. However, longer follow-up results and larger studies are strongly needed.

No abstract

No abstract