Follow-up of multicentric HCC according to the mRECIST criteria: role of 320-Row CT with semi-automatic 3D analysis software for evaluating the response to systemic therapy.

AIM: To evaluate the role of 320-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) with 3D analysis software in follow up of patients affected by multicentric hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic therapy by using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 38 patients affected by multicentric HCC underwent MDCT. All exams were performed before and after iodinate contrast material intravenous injection by using a 320-detection row CT device. CT images were analyzed by two radiologists using multi-planar reconstructions (MPR) in order to assess the response to systemic therapy according to mRECIST criteria: complete response (CR), partial response (PR), progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD). 30 days later, the same two radiologists evaluated target lesion response to systemic therapy according to mRECIST criteria by using 3D analysis software. The difference between the two systems in assessing HCC response to therapy was assessed by the analysis of the variance (Anova Test). Interobserver agreement between the two radiologists by using MPR images and 3D analysis software was calculated by using Cohen's Kappa test. RESULTS: PR occurred in 10/38 cases (26%), PD in 6/38 (16%), SD in 22/38 (58%). Anova Test showed no statistically significant difference between the two systems for assessing target lesion response to therapy (p >0.05). Inter-observer agreement (k) was respectively of 0.62 for MPR images measurements and 0.86 for 3D analysis ones. CONCLUSIONS: 3D Analysis software provides a semiautomatic system for assessing target lesion response to therapy according to mRECIST criteria in patient affected by multifocal HCC treated with systemic therapy. The reliability of 3D analysis software makes it useful in the clinical practice.

Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia.

AIM: To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrospectively evaluated mammograms and sonograms. Both US and mammographic images were evaluated categorizing gynecomastia into non-mass, nodular and flame shaped patterns. The two category assignations were compared in order to find any difference. The reference standard for both the classification systems was represented by the cytological examination in 18 out of 44 cases (41%) and the six-month US follow-up in the remaining cases. RESULTS: The US examination revealed pseudo-gynecomastia in 4/48 (8%) and true gynecomastia in the remaining 44 (92%). Gynecomastia was bilateral in 25/44 cases (57%) and unilateral in the remaining 19 (43%). The cases of true gynecomastia included non mass shape in 26/44 cases (59%), nodular shape in 12 (27%) and flame shape in 6 (14%). The mammographic examination revealed the same results as compared with US findings. 18/44 (41%) patients affected by nodular or dendritic gynecomastia underwent cytological examination confirming the presence of glandular tissue and the benign nature of the clinical condition. CONCLUSIONS: US could be proposed as the primary imaging tool for diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia, avoiding unnecessary Xray examinations or invasive procedures in case of diffuse gynecomastia. In case of nodular or dendritic patterns, biopsy remains mandatory for a definitive diagnosis.

PIP breast implants: rupture rate and correlation with breast cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the incidence of Poly Implant Prosthése (PIP) rupture as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the prevalence of the detected signs and the potential correlation with breast carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 67 patients with silicone breast implants and clinical indications for breast MRI were evaluated for a total of 125 implants: 40 (32%) PIP in 21 patients and 85 non-PIP in 46 patients (68%), the latest considered as control group. A 1.5-T MR imaging device was used in order to assess implant integrity with dedicated sequences and in 6 cases a dynamic study was performed for characterizing breast lesions. Two radiologists with more than 5 years' experience in the field of MRI evaluated in consensus all MR images searching for the presence of clear signs of intra or extra-capsular implant rupture. RESULTS: 20/40 (50%) PIP implants presented signs of intra-capsular rupture: linguine sign in 20 cases (100%), tear-drop sign in 6 (30%). In 12/20 cases (60%), MRI signs of extra-capsular rupture were detected. In the control group, an intra-capsular rupture was diagnosed in 12/85 cases (14%) associated with extra-capsular one in 5/12 cases (42%). Among the six cases with suspected breast lesions, in 2/21 patients with PIP implants (10%) a breast carcinoma was diagnosed (mucinous carcinoma, n=1; invasive ductal carcinoma, n=1). In 4/46 patients (9%) with non-PIP implants, an invasive ductal carcinoma was diagnosed. CONCLUSION: The rupture rate of PIP breast implants is significantly higher than non-PIP (50% vs 14%). MRI represents the most accurate imaging tool for evaluating breast prostheses and the linguine sign is the most common MRI sign to be searched. The incidence of breast carcinoma does not significantly differ between the PIP and non-PIP implants and a direct correlation with breast cancer can not been demonstrated.