Search

Aim: To identify clinically occult nipple-areola complex (NAC) involvement using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to inform selection of patients eligible for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM)., Material and Methods: This was a retrospective study of 195 patients, who had preoperative breast MRI (February 2011 to January 2017) before undergoing surgical treatments (NSM or SSM) for newly diagnosed breast cancer. Tumour features at MRI (mass or non-mass lesion, diameter, lesion-NAC distance [LND]) and pathology (lesion diameter, histopathological type, receptor status) were recorded, as well as the type of surgery (NSM/SSM) and presence (NAC+) or absence (NAC-) of tumour at intraoperative evaluation of retroareolar tissue. Mann-Whitney test, Fisher's exact test, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used for analysis of NAC+ versus NAC- to assess variables that predict NAC tumoural involvement., Results: Over the study period, NAC+ was proven histologically in 71/200 (35.5%) surgical treatments, while there were 129/200 NAC- (72 NSM and 128 SSM performed). LND at MRI was statistically (p<0.001) lower in NAC+ patients than in NAC- patients. The area under the ROC curve (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.88) indicated 10 mm as the best cut-off, with sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 72%, and accuracy of 79%. A 5-mm cut-off enhanced sensitivity, whereas a 15-mm cut-off favoured specificity., Conclusions: MRI is a useful tool for identifying NAC+ patients; a 10-mm cut-off for LND assists selection of patients for NSM, although intraoperative retroareolar tissue examination remains mandatory., (Copyright © 2018 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the role and clinical impact of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and follow-up of acute pyelonephritis (APN)., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 442 consecutive renal MRI examinations (279 diagnostic and 163 follow-up) performed in 285 patients (mean age 42.17 years), 35 of whom were kidney transplant recipients with a clinical suspicion of APN., Results: MRI showed signal abnormalities suggestive of APN in 125/244 (51.2%) patients with native kidneys. Except for two examinations performed without paramagnetic contrast material, the inflammatory foci appeared as areas of nonenhancement: single in 39/123 cases, multiple in 84/123, unilateral in 60/84 and bilateral in 24/84. Abscesses were present in 40/123 (32.5%) positive cases. During follow-up, we observed complete normalisation of MRI signs in 86/103 patients; 17/103 (16.5%) cases evolved into fibrosis and scarring. In 15/35 (42.8%) patients with transplanted kidney, MRI was positive for APN., Conclusions: Renal MRI is an effective tool for the diagnosis and follow-up of APN both in patients not at risk and those at higher risk, such as those with a transplanted kidney. The high costs of the examination are offset by better treatment planning and early complication detection.