Performance of contrast-enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre.

INTRODUCTION: To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low-energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning. METHODS: Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen (P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen (P value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CEM is superior to standard 2D digital mammography for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and is a reliable and more accurate method for estimating tumour size.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of image-guided enema reduction techniques for paediatric intussusception: A review of the literature.

There is variable international practice regarding the technique used for image-guided enema reduction in paediatric intussusception. A recent meta-analysis found pneumatic reduction to be more effective than hydrostatic techniques. Clinical practice variation may impact on perforation rates, ionizing radiation exposure and requirement for surgery. The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of fluoroscopically guided pneumatic reduction (FGPR) compared to ultrasound (US) guided intussusception reduction (USGIR) techniques for paediatric intussusception treatment. Articles were identified by searching OVID Medline on 21/02/14 and by scanning retrieved articles reference lists. The search was repeated on 30/09/15. Systematic reviews (SR) were appraised with the PRISMA critical appraisal tool. Primary studies underwent a separate critical appraisal process. Successful reductions and perforations per attempt were calculated for each study. Pooled estimates of proportions were calculated for each of these dichotomous outcomes. A SR and 42 primary studies were included in the review. No randomised control trial (RCT) study was included. Non-randomised comparative studies and non-comparative studies suggest that hydrostatic reduction under US control has a similar efficacy and safety profile to pneumatic reduction under fluoroscopic control, but USGIR data are dominated by a single large, non-comparative study performed in China. US-guided intussusception reduction should be considered an alternative to FGPR as it has similar efficacy and safety, and affords no ionised radiation exposure. However, RCT data are required to inform practice.