Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Mammography Research Articles

Dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer and detection of tumor size.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEM's using histopathological findings, and compare lesion size measurements obtained from both methods with pathological size. This prospective study included 120 lesions, of which 70 were malignant, in 104 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within a week. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR and CEM images in separate sessions, using the BI-RADS classification system. Additionally, the maximum sizes of lesion were measured. Diagnostic accuracy parameters and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The correlation between the maximum diameter of breast lesions observed in MRI, CEM, and pathology was analyzed. The overall diagnostic values for MRI were as follows: sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) 77.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.8%, and accuracy 81.7%. Correspondingly, for CEM, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.14%, 81.67%, 60%, 77.27%, and 93.75%, respectively. The ROC analysis of CEM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.907 for observer 1 and 0.857 for observer 2, whereas MRI exhibited an AUC of 0.910 for observer 1 and 0.914 for observer 2. Notably, CEM showed the highest correlation with pathological lesion size (r = 0.660 for observer 1 and r = 0.693 for observer 2, p < 0.001 for both). CEM can be used with high sensitivity and similar diagnostic performance comparable to MRI for diagnosing breast cancer. CEM proves to be a successful diagnostic method for precisely determining tumor size.

Granulomatous mastitis: radiological findings

To evaluate the radiological, ultrasonographic, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis. Between April 2002 and June 2005, the mammography, ultrasound, color Doppler ultrasound, nonenhanced MR, and dynamic MR findings of nine patients with the preliminary clinical diagnosis of malignancy and the final diagnosis of granulomatous mastitis were evaluated. On mammography, asymmetrical focal densities with no distinct margins, ill-defined masses with spiculated contours, and bilateral multiple ill-defined nodules were seen. On ultrasound, in four patients a discrete, heterogenous hypoechoic mass, in two patients multiple abscesses, in one patient bilateral multiple central hypo peripheral hyperechoic lesions, in two patients heterogeneous hypo- and hyperechoic areas together with parenchymal distortion, and in one patient irregular hypoechoic masses with tubular extensions and abscess cavities were seen. Five of the lesions were vascular on color Doppler ultrasound. On MR mammography, the most frequent finding was focal or diffuse asymmetrical signal intensity changes that were hypointense on T1W images and hyperintense on T2W images, without significant mass effect. Nodular lesions were also seen. On dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography, mass-like enhancement, ring-like enhancement, and nodular enhancement were seen. The time-intensity curves differed from patient to patient and from lesion to lesion. The imaging findings of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis have a wide spectrum, and they are inconclusive for differentiating malignant and benign lesions.