Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging.

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.

Non-timely clinically applicable ADC ratio in prostate mpMRI: a comparison with fusion biopsy results.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ADC ratio and to evaluate its efficacy in reducing the number of false positives in prostatic mpMRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent an mpMRI and a targeted fusion biopsy in our institution from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively selected. Two experienced readers (R1 and R2) independently evaluated the images, blindly to biopsy results. The radiologists assessed the ADC ratios by tracing a circular 10 mm2 ROI on the biopsied lesion and on the apparently benign contralateral parenchyma. Prostate cancers were divided into non-clinically significant (nsPC, Gleason score = 6) and clinically significant (sPC, Gleason score ≥ 7). ROC analyses were performed. RESULTS: 167 patients and188 lesions were included. Concordance was 0.62 according to Cohen's K. ADC ratio showed an AUC for PCAs of 0.78 in R1 and 0.8 in R2. The AUC for sPC was 0.85 in R1 and 0.84 in R2. The 100% sensitivity cut-off for sPCs was 0.65 (specificity 25.6%) in R1 and 0.66 (specificity 27.4%) in R2. Forty-three benign or not clinically significant lesions were above the 0.65 threshold in R1; 46 were above the 0.66 cut-off in R2. This would have allowed to avoid an equal number of unnecessary biopsies at the cost of 2 nsPCs in R1 and one nsPC in R2. CONCLUSION: In our sample, the ADC ratio was a useful and accurate tool that could potentially reduce the number of false positives in mpMRI.

Accuracy of ADC ratio in discriminating true and false positives in multiparametric prostatic MRI.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to evaluate the usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratios in discriminating true from false positives in multiparametric (mp) prostate MRI in clinical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 98 prostate lesions in a series of 73 patients who had undergone prostate mpMRI and standard 12-core prostatic biopsy in our institution from 2016 to 2018. Two experienced radiologists performed double blind ADC value quantifications of both MRI-identified lesions and apparently benign contralateral prostatic parenchyma in a circular region of interest (ROI) of ∼10 mm2. The ratios between the mean values of both measurements (i.e., ADC ratio mean) and between the minimum value of the lesion and the maximum value of the benign parenchyma (i.e., ADC ratio min-max) were automatically calculated. The malignancy of all lesions was determined through biopsy according to Gleason score (GS ≥ 6) and localization. RESULTS: For Reader 1, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of ADC ratio mean and ADC ratio min-max were 0.72 and 0.67, respectively, whereas for Reader 2 these values were 0.74 and 0.71, respectively. The best cut-off values for ADC ratio means were ≥ 0.5 (Reader 1) and ≥ 0.6 (Reader 2), with a sensitivity of 76.3 % and 84.2 % and a specificity of 51.7 % and 50 %, respectively. Moreover, based on a threshold of 0.6, no clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was missed by Reader 1, while only one went unnoticed by Reader 2. CONCLUSION: The ADC ratio is a useful and moderately accurate complementary tool to diagnose prostate cancer in the mp-MRI.