RESUMEN
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted various aspects of healthcare, particularly in the medical imaging field. This review focuses on recent developments in the application of deep learning (DL) techniques to breast cancer imaging. DL models, a subset of AI algorithms inspired by human brain architecture, have demonstrated remarkable success in analyzing complex medical images, enhancing diagnostic precision, and streamlining workflows. DL models have been applied to breast cancer diagnosis via mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, DL-based radiomic approaches may play a role in breast cancer risk assessment, prognosis prediction, and therapeutic response monitoring. Nevertheless, several challenges have limited the widespread adoption of AI techniques in clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of rigorous validation, interpretability, and technical considerations when implementing DL solutions. By examining fundamental concepts in DL techniques applied to medical imaging and synthesizing the latest advancements and trends, this narrative review aims to provide valuable and up-to-date insights for radiologists seeking to harness the power of AI in breast cancer care.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Breast cancer diagnosis often involves assessing the locoregional spread of the disease through MRI, as multicentricity, multifocality and/or bilaterality are increasingly common. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a potential alternative method. This study compares the performance of CEM and MRI in preoperative staging of women with confirmed breast carcinoma. Patients were also asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire to rate their comfort level with each investigation. METHODS: From May 1st, 2021 to May 1st, 2022, we enrolled 70 women with confirmed breast carcinoma who were candidates for surgery. For pre-operative locoregional staging, all patients underwent CEM and MRI examination, which two radiologists evaluated blindly. We further investigated all suspicious locations for disease spread, identified by both CEM and MRI, with a second-look ultrasound (US) and eventual histological examination. RESULTS: In our study cohort, MRI and CEM identified 114 and 102 areas of focal contrast enhancement, respectively. A true discrepancy between MRI and CEM occurred in 9 out of 70 patients examined. MRI reported 8 additional lesions that proved to be false positives on second-look US in 6 patients, while it identified 4 lesions that were not detected by CEM and were pathological (true positives) in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CEM showed results comparable to MRI in the staging of breast cancer in our study population, with a high rate of patient acceptability.