Implementation of abbreviated breast MRI in diagnostic and screening settings.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) includes fewer sequences than standard MRI, which could be utilized for breast cancer detection. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated MRI protocol in screening and diagnostic settings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All women with screening and diagnostic (problem-solving and preoperative staging) MRI examination were recruited from 2017 to 2020. Two expert radiologists assessed designed abbreviated protocol (fat-saturated T1-weighted [T1W] pre-contrast and two first fat-saturated T1W post-contrast series with reconstruction of their subtraction) including maximum intensity projection (MIP) and then evaluated standard protocol of breast MRI. Associated findings, including axillary lymphadenopathy and invasion to nipple, skin, or pectoralis muscle were also evaluated. The concordance rate of abbreviated with standard protocol in screening and diagnostic settings were also compared, based on BI-RADS classification. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 108 (26.5%) of 408 patients (mean age = 43 ± 9 years) were classified as BI-RADS 4-5 and considered positive findings based on suspicious enhancement (mass or non-mass enhancement). Compared to standard protocol, abbreviated protocol revealed >98% accuracy in the diagnostic setting as well as 100% accuracy in the screening setting. Concordance rates in screening and diagnostic settings were 99.6% and 98.1%, respectively. There was no discordance between abbreviated and standard protocol in the evaluation of associated findings. CONCLUSION: Abbreviated MRI protocol possesses substantial diagnostic accuracy in both screening and diagnostic settings. Additional information provided by standard protocol might not require for cancer detection.

The Valuable Role of Imaging Modalities in the Diagnosis of the Uncommon Presentations of COVID-19: An Educative Case Series.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019 rapidly turned into a global pandemic. Although the symptoms of COVID-19 are mainly respiratory ones, the infection is associated with a wide range of clinical signs and symptoms. The main imaging modality in COVID-19 is lung computed tomography (CT) scanning, but the diagnosis of the vast spectrum of complications needs the application of various imaging modalities. Owing to the novelty of the disease and its presentations, its complications-particularly uncommon ones-can be easily missed. In this study, we describe some uncommon presentations of COVID-19 diagnosed by various imaging modalities. The first case presented herein was a man with respiratory distress, who transpired to suffer from pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in addition to the usual pneumonia of COVID-19. The second patient was a hospitalized COVID-19 case, whose clinical condition suddenly deteriorated with the development of abdominal symptoms diagnosed as mesenteric ischemia by abdominal CT angiography. The third patient was a case of cardiac involvement in the COVID-19 course, detected as myocarditis by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The fourth and fifth cases were COVID-19-associated encephalitis whose diagnoses were established by brain MRI. COVID-19 is a multisystem disorder with a wide range of complications such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, mesenteric ischemia, myocarditis, and encephalitis. Prompt diagnosis with appropriate imaging modalities can lead to adequate treatment and better survival.

Accurate Estimation of Breast Tumor Size: A Comparison Between Ultrasonography, Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Associated Contributing Factors.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide further evidence on the accuracy of tumor size estimates and influencing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of breast cancer referred to our hospital to obtain a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Data from 76 breast cancer patients with 84 lesions were collected. All participants underwent ultrasonography and MRI, and their mammograms (MGMs) were reevaluated for tumor size estimation. Measurements by the three imaging modalities were compared with the pathologically determined tumor size to assess their accuracy. Influencing factors such as surgical management, molecular and histopathological subtypes, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System enhancement types in MRI were also assessed. RESULTS: The rates of concordance with the gold standard were 64.3%, 76.2%, and 82.1% for MGM, ultrasound (US), and MRI measurements, respectively. Therefore, the highest concordance rate was observed in MRI-based estimates. Among the discordant cases, US and MGM underestimation were more prevalent (70%); nevertheless, MRI showed significant overestimation (80%). Tumor size estimates in patients whose MRIs presented with either non-mass enhancement [p=0.030; odds ratio (OR)=17.2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-225.9] or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement (p=0.001; OR=51.0; 95% CI: 5.0-518.4) were more likely to be discordant with pathological measurements compared with those in cases with only mass lesion on their MRIs. CONCLUSION: MRI was more accurate than either US or MGM in estimating breast tumor size but had the highest overestimation rate. Therefore, caution should be practiced in interpreting data obtained from subjects whose MRIs present with non-mass enhancement or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement.