Challenges in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography interpretation: artefacts lexicon.

AIM: To review and describe commonly encountered artefacts in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). MATERIALS & METHODS: This retrospective study included 200 women who underwent CESM examinations for screening and diagnostic purposes. Analysis was performed on the image data sets of these women, comprising of a total of 774 subtracted images. Images were reviewed with focus on the presence of four artefacts: rim ("breast within breast"), ripple (black and white lines), axillary line, and skin-line enhancement (skin-line highlighting). Statistical cross-correlation and association with acquisition parameters (tube current, tube voltage, compression force, breast thickness, paddle size) was compared using Fisher's exact test and t-test. RESULTS: The rim artefact was highly common (97-99%) in every projection. The ripple artefact was increasingly more common on the oblique projections (80-82%) and found to be associated with higher breast thickness values. The axillary line artefact was detected only on oblique projections (63%) and associated with the use of a small compression paddle. The skin-line enhancement artefact was seen in 19-46% of projections. None of the artefacts interfered with image interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Two main artefacts commonly seen on CESM are rim and ripple artefacts. They do not hamper with image interpretation. It is important to be aware of them and prevent misinterpretation of these artefacts as real breast pathology.

Differentiation between right tubo-ovarian abscess and appendicitis using CT--a diagnostic challenge.

AIM: To determine CT features that can potentially differentiate right tubo-ovarian abscess (TOA) from acute appendicitis (AA; including abscess formation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The abdominal computed tomography (CT) images of 48 patients with right-sided TOA (average age 39.3 ± 9.8 years) and 80 patients (average age 53.5 ± 19.9 years) with AA (24 with peri-appendicular abscess) were retrospectively evaluated. Two experienced radiologists evaluated 12 CT signs (including enlarged, thickened wall ovary, appendix diameter and wall thickness, peri-appendicular fluid collection, adjacent bowel wall thickening, fat stranding, free fluid, and extraluminal gas) in consensus to categorize the studies as either TOA or AA. The diagnosis and the frequency of each of the signs were correlated with the surgical and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Reviewers classified 92% cases correctly (TOA=85%, AA=96.3%), 3% incorrectly (TOA=6.3%, AA=1.3%); 5% were equivocal (TOA=8.3%, AA=2.5%). In the peri-appendicular abscess group reviewers were correct in 100%. Frequent findings in the TOA group were an abnormal ovary (87.5%), peri-ovarian fat stranding (58.3%), and recto-sigmoid wall thickening (37.5%). An abnormal appendix was observed in 2% of TOA patients. Frequent findings in the AA group were a thickened wall (32.5%) and distended (80%) appendix. Recto-sigmoid wall thickening was less frequent in AA (12.5%). The appendix was not identified in 45.8% of the TOA patients compared to 15% AA. CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of a right lower quadrant inflammatory mass, peri-ovarian fat stranding, thickened recto-sigmoid wall, and a normal appearing caecum, in young patients favour the diagnosis of TOA. An unidentified appendix does not contribute to the differentiation between TOA and peri-appendicular abscess.