Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.

MRI versus CT in the detection of brain lesions in patients with infective endocarditis before or after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE: Imaging of brain involvement in infective endocarditis can drive the clinical management of this serious condition. MRI is very sensitive, but CT is more readily available. In this retrospective study, we compared the detection rates of CT and MRI. METHODS: After Ethics Committee approval, we retrospectively reviewed a series of 20 patients (13 males, median age 64 years) who underwent both CT and MRI either before or after cardiac surgery for definite infective endocarditis. Plain CT and MRI were evaluated for acute ischemic lesions, both punctuate and large, intraparenchymal hemorrhages, cerebral microbleeds, subarachnoid hemorrhages, abscesses, microabscesses, and meningitis. Qualitative assessment and McNemar test were performed. The value of contrast-enhanced scans (MRI, n = 14; CT, n = 9) and cognitive status were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 166 lesions were identified on either technique: 137 (83%) on MRI only, 4 (2%) on CT only, and 25 (15%) on both techniques (p < 0.001). For these last 25 lesions, concordance on lesion type was only 16/25 (64%). MRI detected more microbleeds and ischemic lesions, while the 4 CT-only findings were false positives. Contrast-enhanced scans identified 68 enhancing lesions, mainly abscesses and microabscesses, and allowed a better characterization for 61/117 lesions (52%) with MRI, and for 11/81 (14%) with CT. Follow-up identified mild cognitive impairment in 6/13 and dementia in 3/13 patients. CONCLUSION: While CT rapidly excludes large hemorrhages in patients with infective endocarditis, MRI accurately distinguishes the whole spectrum of brain lesions, including small ischemic lesions, microbleeds, and microabscesses.

MR Imaging for Selection of Patients for Partial Breast Irradiation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review articles that estimated the ineligibility for partial breast irradiation (PBI) after magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: No ethics committee approval was needed. A systematic search was performed by using MEDLINE and EMBASE. The rate of patients eligible at standard assessment (ie, clinical examination, mammography, and/or ultrasonography) but ineligible after MR imaging was a study outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to identify predictors. Quality was appraised by using the Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS: Of 93 retrieved articles, six were included (total, 3136 patients). For PBI eligibility, all studies applied National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-39 criteria. Ineligibility at standard assessment varied from 21% to 80%; MR imaging prompted ineligibility for PBI in 6%-25% of patients who were initially deemed eligible or in 2%-20% if calculated on the overall number of patients initially screened. Meta-regression showed a negative correlation between ineligibility at standard assessment and ineligibility after MR imaging (P < .001). The pooled percentage of patients eligible at standard assessment but ineligible after MR imaging was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6%, 19%). Predictors for ineligibility after MR imaging were cancers stage pT2 or greater versus less than stage pT2 (OR, 8.8 [95% CI: 4.7, 16.7]; P < .001), invasive lobular histopathologic results versus invasive ductal pathologic results (OR, 3.0 [95% CI: 1.6, 6.6]; P = .007), pre- versus postmenopausal status (OR, 1.9 [95% CI: 1.3, 2.6]; P < .001), invasive cancer versus ductal carcinoma in situ (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.4]; P = .031). Study quality ranged from 17 to 20 (maximum quality, 22). The risk of publication bias was moderate. CONCLUSION: One of nine women (11%), who on the sole basis of standard assessment were candidates to undergo PBI, was found to be ineligible after undergoing MR imaging. Breast MR imaging should be used to select patients for PBI.