: MRI largely outperformed mammography, ultrasonography, and their combination for screening high-risk women below and over 50.

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

BackgroundRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the most promising non-surgical treatments for hepatic tumors. The assessment of the therapeutic efficacy of RFA is usually obtained by visual comparison of pre- and post-treatment CT images, but no numerical quantification is performed.MethodsIn this work, a novel method aiming at providing a more objective tool for the evaluation of RFA coverage is described. Image registration and segmentation techniques were applied to enable the visualization of the tumor and the corresponding post-RFA necrosis in the same framework. In addition, a set of numerical indexes describing tumor/necrosis overlap and their mutual position were computed.ResultsAfter validation of segmentation step, the method was applied on a dataset composed by 10 tumors, suspected not to be completed treated. Numerical indexes showed that only two tumors were totally treated and the percentage of a residual tumor was in the range of 5.12%-35.92%.ConclusionsThis work represents a first attempt to obtain a quantitative tool aimed to assess the accuracy of RFA treatment. The possibility to visualize the tumor and the correspondent post-RFA necrosis in the same framework and the definition of some synthetic numerical indexes could help clinicians in ameliorating RFA treatment.

No abstract

Aims and background Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations have an elevated risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Because of the early onset of the disease, screening of this group of women should start at an earlier age than in the general population. The association of breast magnetic resonance imaging (BMRI) and ultrasonography (US) with mammography (MX) and clinical breast examination (CBE) in the regular surveillance of these individuals has been proposed and seems to improve the early detection of breast cancer. Methods Within a multicenter study started by the Istituto Superiore di Sanita (Rome), at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan (INT) we enrolled 116 women at high genetic risk for breast cancer; they were either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers or had a strong family history of breast cancer. They underwent CBE, MX, US and BMRI once a year. Results Between June 2000 and April 2005, at INT 12 cancers were detected among the 116 screened individuals (10%). In this subgroup, 1 patient refused BMRI and in 2 cases US was not performed. With BMRI we found 11 cancers and 6 of them were detectable only by this technique. In these 6 cases, the size of the disease was less than 1 cm and MX was false negative due to irregularly nodular parenchyma in 4 cases and scar tissue or prosthesis in the other 2. US was not performed in 2 cases and was false negative in 4 cases. Three false positive results were found with BMRI: 1 case was considered suspect but related to hormonal influences; 1 case with the same pattern was sent for second-look US, which gave a negative result and BMRI review after 6 months showed normalization of the parenchyma; in the third case histology revealed the presence of adenosis. No false positive results were registered for MX. Conclusions The aim of secondary prevention is the detection of cancer at its earliest stage. BMRI screening in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or at high familiar risk appears to be highly sensitive and may detect mammographically occult disease. The accuracy of MR imaging is higher than that of conventional imaging but the technique is flawed by a lower specificity. In order to avoid unnecessary biopsies we believe that the combination of BMRI and conventional imaging can be very useful in screening women with a high genetic risk of breast cancer, especially with second-look evaluation by means of US when BMRI yields the only positive diagnostic result. Second-look US has been demonstrated to be of critical importance both in recognizing false positive BMRI results and in guiding biopsies, when necessary.