Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided?

The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with mammography (MG) and combined CESM + MG in terms of detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers in order to assess the potential to reduce radiation exposure. A total of 118 patients underwent MG and CESM and had final histological results. CESM was performed as a bilateral examination starting 2 min after injection of iodinated contrast medium. Three independent blinded radiologists read the CESM, MG, and CESM + MG images with an interval of at least 4 weeks to avoid case memorization. Sensitivity and size measurement correlation and differences were calculated, average glandular dose (AGD) levels were compared, and breast densities were reported. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests were performed. A total of 107 imaging pairs were available for analysis. Densities were ACR1: 2, ACR2: 45, ACR3: 42, and ACR4: 18. Mean AGD was 1.89 mGy for CESM alone, 1.78 mGy for MG, and 3.67 mGy for the combination. In very dense breasts, AGD of CESM was significantly lower than MG. Sensitivity across readers was 77.9 % for MG alone, 94.7 % for CESM, and 95 % for CESM + MG. Average tumor size measurement error compared to postsurgical pathology was -0.6 mm for MG, +0.6 mm for CESM, and +4.5 mm for CESM + MG (p < 0.001 for CESM + MG vs. both modalities). CESM alone has the same sensitivity and better size assessment as CESM + MG and was significantly better than MG with only 6.2 % increase in AGD. The combination of CESM + MG led to systematic size overestimation. When a CESM examination is planned, additional MG can be avoided, with the possibility of saving up to 61 % of radiation dose, especially in patients with dense breasts.

Peritumoural versus subareolar administration of technetium-99m nanocolloid for sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer: preliminary results of a prospective intra-individual comparative study.

The scintigraphic detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SNs) in early-stage breast cancer is a widely accepted diagnostic method. However, which radiotracer administration mode should be used is still controversial. This prospective study aimed to intra-individually compare the detection rates obtained after peritumoural versus subareolar injection with regard to SN number and localisation. Fifty-one women (age, 32-76 years) with breast cancer were investigated on two consecutive days. On day 1, 140-400 MBq technetium-99m nanocolloid was injected along the peripheral tumour margins. Static lymphoscintigrams of the axilla, thorax and neck were taken in various views 1 and 19 h p.i. On day 2, 10 MBq (99m)Tc-nanocolloid was injected subareolarly in the clock position of the tumour and dynamic and static scans were performed immediately. Thereafter, 30 MBq (99m)Tc-nanocolloid was administered peri-subareolarly and lymphoscintigrams were acquired in a dynamic and static manner. In 49/51 women, the different injection techniques disclosed the identical number and location of SNs in the axilla. In seven patients, the peritumoural injection detected additional SNs in the parasternal group. Axillary SNs were detected as early as 2-15 min following subareolar injection, both in the clock position and peri-subareolarly, as compared with about 1 h after peritumoural administration. Sixteen patients showed at least one tumour-positive SN, and nine also had tumour-positive non-SNs. One patient with a tumour-negative SN, visualised concordantly by both subareolar and peritumoural administration, demonstrated two metastatic non-SNs, yielding a false-negative rate of 5.9%. In conclusion, a simple subareolar injection in the clock position is sufficient for SN detection in breast cancer, if it is accepted that parasternal lymph node detection has no therapeutic consequences.

Subareolar injection of technetium-99m nanocolloid yields reliable data on the axillary lymph node tumour status in breast cancer patients with previous manipulations on the primary tumour: a prospective study of 117 patients.

According to recently published guidelines, histological clarification by interventional techniques should be undertaken before planning the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma. In patients with previous manipulations on the primary tumour, peritumoural injection in the context of preoperative scintigraphic detection of the sentinel lymph nodes is not possible. The aim of this prospective study was to clarify whether subareolar injection of nanocolloid can yield reliable data on the axillary lymph node tumour status in breast cancer patients with previous manipulations on the primary tumour. To date, 117 women (age 31-80 years) with breast carcinoma have been enrolled. All of these patients had undergone a biopsy (n=88) or surgery on the primary tumour (n=29) and were without clinical suspicion of lymph node metastases. Subareolar injection of 40 MBq technetium-99m nanocolloid was carried out in at least eight deposits around the areolar margin [one deposit in the middle of each quadrant and one deposit at each quadrant intersection (0.05 ml/deposit)]. Immediately after injection, dynamic and static lymphoscintigraphy of the axillary, thoracic and cervical areas was performed in various views with a gamma camera (LEAP collimator, 256x256 matrix). Lymphatic drainage was directed exclusively to the ipsilateral axilla. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and elective dissection of axillary lymph nodes were performed in all patients. All lymph nodes removed were examined by histology and immunohistochemistry. In 26 patients, lymph node metastases were found in the sentinel lymph nodes. In six of them, non-sentinel lymph nodes also showed tumour involvement. In the remaining 91 patients, lymph node metastases could be found neither in sentinel lymph nodes nor in non-sentinel lymph nodes. In conclusion, subareolar nanocolloid injection can yield reliable information on the axillary lymph node tumour status in patients with previous manipulations on the primary tumour in the breast.