Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography.

PURPOSE: To assess the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in predicting the malignancy of breast calcifications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications (BIRADS 4) who underwent CEM and stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) at our institution. We assessed the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEM in predicting malignancy of microcalcifications with a 95% confidence interval; we performed an overall analysis and a subgroup analysis stratified into group A-low risk (BIRADS 4a) and group B-medium/high risk (BIRADS 4b-4c). We then evaluated the correlation between enhancement and tumour proliferation index (Ki-67) for all malignant lesions. RESULTS: Data from 182 patients with 184 lesions were collected. Overall the SE of CEM in predicting the malignancy of microcalcifications was 0.70, SP was 0.85, the PPV was 0.82, the NPV was 0.76 and AUC was 0.78. SE in group A was 0.89, SP was 0.89, PPV was 0.57, NPV was 0.98 and AUC was 0.75. SE in group B was 0.68, SP was 0.80, PPV was 0.87, NPV was 0.57 and AUC was 0.75. Among malignant microcalcifications that showed enhancement (N = 52), 61.5% had Ki-67 ≥ 20% and 38.5% had low Ki-67 values. Among the lesions that did not show enhancement (N = 22), 90.9% had Ki-67 < 20% and 9.1% showed high Ki-67 values 20%. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of enhancement can be used as an indicative parameter for the absence of disease in cases of low-suspicious microcalcifications, but not in intermediate-high suspicious ones for which biopsy remains mandatory and can be used to distinguish indolent lesions from more aggressive neoplasms, with consequent reduction of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Magnetic Localization of Breast Lesions: A Large-Scale European Evaluation in a National Cancer Institute.

INTRODUCTION: For decades the standard for preoperative breast lesions' localization has been wire localization. In recent years the options for nonwired localization have significantly expanded and include radioactive seeds, radar reflectors, radiofrequency identification tags and magnetic seeds. The aim of our study is to evaluate on a large scale the performance of preoperative magnetic seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing image-guided magnetic seed localization from September 2019 to December 2022. We analyzed imaging findings, histological results, and type of surgery. The primary outcome was the successful localization rate. Secondary outcomes were the successful placement rate, the ease of percutaneous positioning, the procedural complications, and the reintervention rate. RESULTS: A total of 1123 magnetic seeds were placed in 1084 patients by 4 radiologists under ultrasound (1053) or stereotactic (70) guidance. All seeds were detectable transcutaneously in all breasts sizes and at all depths by 7 surgeons with a success rate of 100%. A total of 97.5% seeds were correctly placed into the target lesions (only 2.5% were dislocated). All radiologists have shown good compliance during the procedure, and there were no complications or safety issues. The reoperation rate was 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided localization with magnetic seeds is an easy, safe, reliable, and effective method for localizing nonpalpable breast lesions. Both radiologists and surgeons agreed that the technology was intuitive to use and that it can be widely applied in preoperative localization in breast units.

Efficacy and safety of vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) of fibroadenomas: experience in a tertiary centre.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technical success and efficacy rates of US-guided percutaneous vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) of breast fibroadenomas, also assessing procedural complications and long-term patient satisfaction rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional database of a tertiary breast cancer referral centre was retrospectively reviewed to retrieve all women with fibroadenomas who underwent US-guided VAE between May 2011 and September 2019. We subsequently included in this study all fibroadenomas with a maximum diameter of 3 cm at US and an available histological confirmation obtained by core-needle biopsy before VAE. Immediately after VAE, technical success (defined as the correct VAE execution) and the occurrence of procedural complications were evaluated. Imaging follow-up (US ± mammography) after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months was performed to evaluate technical efficacy (defined as the absence of fibroadenoma recurrence at 6-month follow-up). Long-term patient satisfaction was evaluated with telephonic interviews in October 2022. RESULTS: We retrospectively included 108 women (median age 46 years) with 110 fibroadenomas diagnosed at core-needle biopsy with a median lesion size at US of 12 mm. Technical success was obtained in 110/110 VAEs (100%). Minor procedural complications (haematomas) occurred in 7/110 VAEs (6%), whereas 8/110 patients had a fibroadenoma recurrence at 6-month follow-up, resulting in a 93% technical efficacy (102/110 VAEs). All patients available for telephonic follow-up (104/104, 100%) reported high satisfaction with VAE results. CONCLUSION: US-guided VAE is a safe and effective procedure for the excision of fibroadenomas, representing a viable alternative to surgery, with a low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

Utility of detection of breast calcifications with integrated real-time radiography system (IRRS) during digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided vacuum assisted biopsy (VAB): initial single-center experience.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the presence of calcifications in specimens collected during stereotactic-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (VABB) is sufficient to ascertain their adequacy for final diagnosis at pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided VABBs were performed on 74 patients with calcifications as target. Each biopsy consisted of the collection of 12 samplings with a 9-gauge needle. This technique was integrated with a real-time radiography system (IRRS) which allowed the operator to determine whether calcifications were included in the specimens at the end of each of the 12 tissue collections through the acquisition of a radiograph of every sampling. Calcified and non-calcified specimens were separately sent to pathology and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 888 specimens were retrieved, 471 containing calcifications and 417 without. In 105 (22.2%) samples out of 471 with calcifications cancer was detected, while the remaining 366 (77.7%) were non-cancerous. Out of 417 specimens without calcifications 56 (13.4%) were cancerous, whereas 361 (86.5%) were non-cancerous. Seven hundred and twenty-seven specimens out of all 888 were cancer-free (81.8%, 95%CI 79-84%). CONCLUSION: Although there is a statistical significative difference between calcified and non-calcified samples and the detection of cancer (p < 0.001), our study shows that the sole presence of calcifications in the specimens is not sufficient to determine their adequacy for final diagnosis at pathology because non-calcified samples can be cancerous and vice-versa. Ending biopsies when calcifications are first detected through IRRS could lead to false negative results.

Structured reporting of x-ray mammography in the first diagnosis of breast cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal.

BACKGROUND: Radiology is an essential tool in the management of a patient. The aim of this manuscript was to build structured report (SR) Mammography based in Breast Cancer. METHODS: A working team of 16 experts (group A) was composed to create a SR for Mammography Breast Cancer. A further working group of 4 experts (group B), blinded to the activities of the group A, was composed to assess the quality and clinical usefulness of the SR final draft. Modified Delphi process was used to assess level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. RESULTS: The final SR version was built by including n = 2 items in Personal Data, n = 4 items in Setting, n = 2 items in Comparison with previous breast examination, n = 19 items in Anamnesis and clinical context; n = 10 items in Technique; n = 1 item in Radiation dose; n = 5 items Parenchymal pattern; n = 28 items in Description of the finding; n = 12 items in Diagnostic categories and Report and n = 1 item in Conclusions. The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 and 807 in the second round. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.82 in the second round. About the quality evaluation, the overall mean score of the experts was 3.3. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Structured reporting improves the quality, clarity and reproducibility of reports across departments, cities, countries and internationally and will assist patient management and improve breast health care and facilitate research.

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: reproducibility compared to pathologic anatomy.

PURPOSE: To compare the reproducibility between contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the postsurgical pathologic examination. In addition, the applicability of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of MRI to CEDM was evaluated for mass lesions. METHODS: A total of 62 patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this study, for a total of 67 lesions. Fifty-nine patients underwent both methods. The reproducibility between MRI vs CEDM and the reference standard (postoperative pathology) was assessed by considering the lesion and breast size as pivotal variables. Reproducibility was evaluated by computing the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman plots were used to depict the observed pattern of agreement as well as to estimate the associated bias. Furthermore, the pattern of agreement between the investigated methods with regard to the breast lesion characterization (i.e. mass/nonmass; shape; margins; internal enhanced characteristics) was assessed by computing the Cohen kappa and its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The reproducibility between MRI and the reference standard and between CEDM and the reference standard showed substantial agreement, with a CCC value of 0.956 (95% CI, 0.931-0.972) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.920-0.969), respectively. By looking at the Bland-Altman analysis, bias values of 2.344 and 1.875 mm were observed for MRI and CEDM vs reference evaluation, respectively. The agreement between MRI and CEDM is substantial with a CCC value of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.949-0.981). The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias values of -0.469 mm when comparing CEDM vs MRI. Following the Landis and Koch classification criteria, moderate agreement was observed between the two methods in describing BI-RADS descriptors of mass lesions. CONCLUSION: CEDM is able to measure and describe tumor masses comparably to MRI and can be used for surgical planning.

Breast metastasis from cutaneous malignant melanoma mimicking a breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast metastases are very uncommon, either from solid tumors or malignant melanoma. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 42-year-old woman with a history of cutaneous melanoma of the shoulder excised 21 years ago. She presented with a palpable lump in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. Ultrasound demonstrated a solid mass within a cystic lesion. A core biopsy was taken and first histology reported a poorly differentiated primary breast cancer suspected to be triple negative. MRI detected a satellite lesion in the same breast, a focus of suspected enhancement in the other breast, and the extramammary finding of an enhancing pulmonary lesion. Staging computed tomography detected widespread metastases to the lungs, brain, subcutaneous left shoulder, liver, pancreas, and hepatorenal recess. A core biopsy was taken from the left breast lesion and the previous slides were reviewed; histopathology and immunohistochemistry were in keeping with metastasis from melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of a metastatic lesion to the breast should be taken into account in any patient presenting with a breast lump and a previous history of melanoma. Breast involvement cannot be considered an isolated finding, as it might be the first manifestation of widespread disease.