ABSTRACT
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) involves addition of intravenous iodinated contrast material at digital mammography, thus increasing the ability to detect breast cancer owing to tumor contrast enhancement. After image acquisition, interpretation includes careful assessment of the technique, artifacts, and pitfalls and reporting with a standard lexicon category and appropriate follow-up recommendations. Artifacts and pitfalls that may cause image misinterpretation should be detected and distinguished from pathologic conditions. Different artifacts apparent on CEM images are usually caused during image acquisition and include CEM-specific and contrast agent-related artifacts, apart from the typical digital mammography artifacts. The pitfalls are related to technical and diagnostic difficulties. One disadvantage of CEM that MRI does not have is a technical factor related to a mammography technique that consists of blind spots that may not be included in the imaging field of mammography views, including the axilla, medial region of the breast, or areas close to the breast wall. Normal breast tissue enhancement called background parenchymal enhancement is also present at CEM and may affect interpretation performance. Diagnostic pitfalls are caused by minimally enhancing lesions, such as invasive lobular carcinomas and mucinous carcinomas, which are difficult to detect with CEM, resulting in false-negative findings. Benign lesions can show enhancement at CEM and represent false-positive lesions that should also be recognized. The authors discuss image interpretation of CEM studies and focus on the artifacts and pitfalls that may be encountered. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.
Subject(s)
Artifacts , Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Mammography/methods , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Contrast Media , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methodsABSTRACT
Papillary endothelial hyperplasia (PEH) is an uncommon benign vascular proliferation appearing in soft tissues in different body areas including the breast, which may be related to radiation therapy. A 48-year-old woman previously treated for breast cancer with mastectomy followed by radiation therapy and reconstruction with an implant presented with a newly developing mass in the implant capsule. Pathological diagnosis was PEH. Imaging features of this rare entity are described, and lesions included in differential diagnosis are discussed.
Subject(s)
Breast Implants , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/therapy , Hemangioendothelioma/pathology , Mastectomy , Radiotherapy , Vascular Neoplasms/pathology , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Hemangioendothelioma/diagnostic imaging , Hemangioendothelioma/surgery , Humans , Hyperplasia/pathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Middle Aged , Ultrasonography, Doppler , Vascular Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Vascular Neoplasms/surgeryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this essay is a quick and comprehensive review of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in the diagnosis of osteoporosis that shows how to achieve the best performance in three steps. CONCLUSION: The three-step procedure for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry includes image acquisition emphasizing proper patient positioning and regions of interest; analysis, including areas to scan and detection of artifacts that should be excluded from the analysis and noted in the report because they can necessitate additional imaging; and interpretation of results.
