Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the digital mammography imaging system on overall background enhancement on recombined contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images, the overall background enhancement of two different mammography systems was compared., Methods: In a retrospective single-center study, CESM images of n = 129 female patients who underwent CESM between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed independently by two radiologists. Two mammography machines of different manufacturers were compared qualitatively using a Likert-scale from 1 (minimal) to 4 (marked overall background enhancement) and quantitatively by placing a region of interest and measuring the intensity enhancement. Lesion conspicuity was analyzed using a Likert-scale from 1 (lesion not reliably distinguishable) to 5 (excellent lesion conspicuity). A multivariate regression was performed to test for potential biases on the quantitative results., Results: Significant differences in qualitative background enhancement measurements between machines A and B were observed for both readers (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The quantitative evaluation showed significant differences in background enhancement with an average difference of 75.69 (99%-CI [74.37, 77.02]; p < 0.001). Lesion conspicuity was better for machine A for the first and second reader respectively (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The factor machine was the only influencing factor (p < 0.001). The factors contrast agent, breast density, age, and menstrual cycle could be excluded as potential biases., Conclusion: Mammography machines seem to significantly influence overall background enhancement qualitatively and quantitatively; thus, an impact on diagnostic accuracy appears possible., Key Points: • Overall background enhancement on CESM differs between different vendors qualitatively and quantitatively. • Our retrospective single-center study showed consistent results of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis of overall background enhancement. • Lesion conspicuity is higher in cases of lower background enhancement on CESM., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In case of female breast cancer, a breast conserving excision is often necessary. For this purpose, information from multiple medical imaging techniques have to be combined. Sonography imaging is essential for dense breast tissue and the only medical imaging technique available during surgery. During sonography of the outer breast quadrants the woman is usually in contralateral posterior oblique position, being in supine orientation while holding her ipsilateral arm over the head. Thus, these images cannot be directly registered with MRI or mammography images because these imaging technologies are performed in other patient positions with hands on the side of the body. Thus, we present a novel Finite Element approach how to enable a sonography image registration by showing the first time how to transfer the supine position with the arm straight on side into a supine position with the ipsilateral arm over the head which can be used to include information from MRI or mammography images. This approach is shown and validated with 3D scanner breast surface data as proof of concept. When comparing the simulation result with a 3D surface scan in supine orientation with the arm over the head, a mean surface distance error of 1.57 mm is achieved.

Rationale and Objectives: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) hinders imaging detection due to multifocal appearance and discontinuous growth. Preoperative determination of its extent is therefore challenging. Aim of this study was to investigate the additional benefit of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to mammography (MG) in the diagnosis of DCIS according to size and grading., Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 295 patients with biopsy-proven, pure DCIS. Mean patient age was 57.0 years (27-87 years). All patients obtained MG. Additional MRI was performed in 41.7% (123/295). Mammographic breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), tumor size and grading were analysed. Tumor size on MG and MRI were compared to histopathological size of the surgical specimen., Results: Mean tumor size was 39.6 mm. DCIS was occult on MG in 24.4% (30/123) and on MRI in 1.6% (2/123). Size was underestimated by 4.6 mm (mean) mammographically. DCIS was high grade in 54.5% (67/123), intermediate grade in 40.7% (50/123) and low grade in 4.9% (6/123). MG was exact regarding tumor size in low grade DCIS, underestimated intermediate grade DCIS by 1 mm (median) and high grade DCIS by 10.5 mm. MRI overestimated low grade DCIS by 1 mm (median), was exact regarding intermediate grade DCIS and underestimated high grade DCIS by 1 mm. BPE did not influence tumor detection and measurement., Conclusion: MRI outperforms MG in the detection and size estimation of DCIS and can reduce positive margin rates., (Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the detectability of pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) in lactating glandular tissue on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by using pre- and post-contrast acquisitions and their derived postprocessed images and compare these results to ultrasound (US) and mammography (MG)., Materials and Methods: We reviewed the electronic database for women with PABC and existing breast MRI. MR images (T2-weighted short inversion-recovery sequence [STIR], dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted gradient echo sequence and postprocessed subtraction images [early post-contrast minus pre-contrast]) were retrospectively evaluated (image quality, parenchymal/tumour enhancement kintetics, tumour size and additional lesions). Supplemental subtraction images (latest post-contrast minus early post-contrast) to reduce plateau enhancement were additionally calculated and tumour conspicuity and size were measured. Findings were compared to US and MG reports., Results: Nineteen patients (range 27-42 years) were included. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) was minimal (n=1), mild (n=3), moderate (n=7) and marked (n=8) with kinetics measured plateau (n=8), continuous (n=10) and not quantifiable (n=1). Tumour kinetics presented wash-out (n=17) and plateau (n=2). Eighteen of nineteen tumours were identified on the supplemental subtraction images. All tumours were visible on US; 12/19 were visible on MG (63.2%). MRI detected additional malignant lesions in two patients., Conclusion: Despite high BPE of the lactating breast, MRI securely detects carcinomas and identifies satellite lesions. By using supplemental subtraction images, background enhancement can be eliminated to facilitate diagnosis. US remains a reliable diagnostic tool, but additional MRI is recommended to rule out satellite/contralateral lesions. MG interpretations can be difficult due to high parenchymal density., Key Points: • Despite high background enhancement, MRI of the breast confidently detects carcinomas and identifies further lesions in the lactating breast. • By using supplemental subtraction images, background enhancement in the lactating breast can be eliminated to facilitate diagnosis. • US remains a reliable diagnostic tool. Mammography can be limited due to extremely dense breast tissue related to lactation.

Background Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a novel breast imaging technique providing comparable diagnostic accuracy to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Purpose To show that CESM in patients with MRI contraindications is feasible, accurate, and useful as a problem-solving tool, and to highlight its limitations. Material and Methods A total of 118 patients with MRI contraindications were examined by CESM. Histology was obtained in 94 lesions and used as gold standard for diagnostic accuracy calculations. Imaging data were reviewed retrospectively for feasibility, accuracy, and technical problems. The diagnostic yield of CESM as a problem-solving tool and for therapy response evaluation was reviewed separately. Results CESM was more accurate than mammography (MG) for lesion categorization (r = 0.731, P < 0.0001 vs. r = 0.279, P = 0.006) and for lesion size estimation (r = 0.738 vs. r = 0.689, P < 0.0001). Negative predictive value of CESM was significantly higher than of MG (85.71% vs. 30.77%, P < 0.0001). When used for problem-solving, CESM changed patient management in 2/8 (25%) cases. Superposition artifacts and timing problems affected diagnostic utility in 3/118 (2.5%) patients. Conclusion CESM is a feasible and accurate alternative for patients with MRI contraindications, but it is necessary to be aware of the method's technical limitations.

In digital breast tomosynthesis several low dose mammograms are acquired from different angles to calculate thin slices of synthetic mammograms from algorithms. Similar to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, breast tomosynthesis provides breast images which are virtually free from superimposition. This is in particular important in cases of high mammographic density to differentiate real masses and architectural distortions from the overlying parenchyma. In comparison to full field digital mammography tomosynthesis can improve the cancer detection rate and reduce the recall rate. The limitations of tomosynthesis are the higher radiation dose and the longer reporting time compared to full field digital mammography. Until the radiation dose can be significantly reduced it is advisable to use tomosynthesis in addition to full field digital mammography primarily for the assessment of suspicious mammographic findings and not for breast cancer screening.