Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Characterize MRI-Detected Additional Lesions Unidentified at Targeted Ultrasound in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance (MR) often generates additional suspicious findings needing further investigations. Targeted breast ultrasound (US) is the standard tool to characterize MR additional lesions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to characterize MR detected additional findings, unidentified at targeted breast US. METHODS: This prospective study included women who a) had biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed breast cancers detected at conventional 2D mammography and/or US, referred to breast MR for tumour staging; and b) had DBT if additional MR findings were not detected at targeted ('second look') US. RESULTS: In 520 patients, MR identified 164 (in 114 women, 22%) additional enhancing lesions. Targeted US identified 114/164 (69.5%) of these, whereas 50/164 (30.5%) remained unidentified. DBT identified 32/50 of these cases, increasing the overall characterization of MR detected additional findings to 89.0% (146/164). Using DBT the identified lesions were significantly more likely to be malignant than benign MR-detected additional lesions (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: DBT improves the characterization of additional MR findings not identified at targeted breast US in preoperative breast cancer staging. KEY POINTS: • Targeted US identified 114 of 164 (69.5%) additional enhancing lesions at preoperative breast MRI. • DBT identified a further 32 of the 50 lesions unidentified on targeted US. • DBT improved the characterization of additional MR findings for breast cancer staging.

Mammotome(®) and EnCor (®): comparison of two systems for stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy in the characterisation of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications alone.

PURPOSE: The authors sought to compare the diagnostic performance of the Mammotome(®) and EnCor(®) vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) systems in the assessment of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and July 2012, a total of 169 VABB were performed by stereotactic guidance on a prone table. The Mammotome(®) 11G (S1) or EnCor(®) 10G (S2) probes were used randomly. Sampling time and the number of frustules collected were considered; sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of both procedures were evaluated, considering the final histological examination as reference (B1, B3, B5 lesions underwent surgical excision; B2 lesion were considered confirmed after a negative follow-up of at least 1 year). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups of patients according to the number of procedures (S1 82/169; S2 87/169), average age, BIRADS category (4a, b), and average size of the lesions. The two systems did not differ statistically for correlation with the final histology (S1 k = 0.94 ± 0.06; S2 k = 0.92 ± 0.08) and underestimation of B3 lesions or in situ (S1 4.5%; S2 4.3%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, diagnostic accuracy of S1 and S2 were also not statistically different. The systems differed only in sampling time (S1 80; S2 63 s), but not in total procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the effectiveness of VABB in the assessment of microcalcifications and highlights the lack of significant differences between the two systems in terms of diagnostic performance.

Radiological assessment of breast density by visual classification (BI-RADS) compared to automated volumetric digital software (Quantra): implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study was done to assess breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis according to the visual Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification, to compare visual assessment with Quantra software for automated density measurement, and to establish the role of the software in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed 200 digital mammograms performed in 2D and 3D modality, 100 of which positive for breast cancer and 100 negative. Radiological density was assessed with the BI-RADS classification; a Quantra density cut-off value was sought on the 2D images only to discriminate between BI-RADS categories 1-2 and BI-RADS 3-4. Breast density was correlated with age, use of hormone therapy, and increased risk of disease. RESULTS: The agreement between the 2D and 3D assessments of BI-RADS density was high (K 0.96). A cut-off value of 21% is that which allows us to best discriminate between BI-RADS categories 1-2 and 3-4. Breast density was negatively correlated to age (r = -0.44) and positively to use of hormone therapy (p = 0.0004). Quantra density was higher in breasts with cancer than in healthy breasts. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear difference between the visual assessments of density on 2D and 3D images. Use of the automated system requires the adoption of a cut-off value (set at 21%) to effectively discriminate BI-RADS 1-2 and 3-4, and could be useful in clinical practice.

Acellular dermal matrix imaging features in breast reconstructive surgery: a pictorial review.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are biological engineered tissues, which may provide an immunologically inert scaffold in breast reconstruction. Since the literature on imaging features of ADMs is limited, radiologists must be aware of the common imaging appearances of ADM, to differentiate normal conformation from residual or recurrent disease. Our purpose is to review the current role of ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction, describing the normal imaging findings at ultrasound, mammography, and MRI also considering the possible changes over time. In this pictorial essay, we reviewed imaging features of ADMs described in the literature and we reported our experience in patients who underwent reconstructive surgery with human or animal ADM for newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

AIM: To define the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 200 consecutive women with histologically-proven breast cancer using the above imaging techniques. Accuracy measurements were estimated using a lesion-by-lesion analysis for unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, bilateral and all carcinomas. We also calculated sensitivity according to breast density. RESULTS: DBT had higher sensitivity than DM (90.7% vs. 85.2%). Combined DM and DBT with US yielded a 97.7% sensitivity; despite high sensitivity of MRI (98.8%), the addition of MRI to combined DM with DBT and US did not significantly improve sensitivity. Overall accuracy did not significantly differ between MRI and DM with DBT and US (92.3% vs. 93.7%). Breast density affected sensitivity of DM and DBT (statistically significant difference for DM), not MRI. CONCLUSION: There is little gain in sensitivity and no gain in overall accuracy, by performing MRI for patients who have been evaluated with DM with DBT and US.