No abstract

The European Society of Breast Radiology (EUSOBI) established an International Breast DWI working group. The working group consists of clinical breast MRI experts, MRI physicists, and representatives from large vendors of MRI equipment, invited based upon proven expertise in breast MRI and/or in particular breast DWI, representing 25 sites from 16 countries. The aims of the working group are (a) to promote the use of breast DWI into clinical practice by issuing consensus statements and initiate collaborative research where appropriate; (b) to define necessary standards and provide practical guidance for clinical application of breast DWI; (c) to develop a standardized and translatable multisite multivendor quality assurance protocol, especially for multisite research studies; (d) to find consensus on optimal methods for image processing/analysis, visualization, and interpretation; and (e) to work collaboratively with system vendors to improve breast DWI sequences. First consensus recommendations, presented in this paper, include acquisition parameters for standard breast DWI sequences including specifications of b values, fat saturation, spatial resolution, and repetition and echo times. To describe lesions in an objective way, levels of diffusion restriction/hindrance in the breast have been defined based on the published literature on breast DWI. The use of a small ROI placed on the darkest part of the lesion on the ADC map, avoiding necrotic, noisy or non-enhancing lesion voxels is currently recommended. The working group emphasizes the need for standardization and quality assurance before ADC thresholds are applied. The working group encourages further research in advanced diffusion techniques and tailored DWI strategies for specific indications.

Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). Materials and methods 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low-and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. Results The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p<0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. Conclusion Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone.MethodsOne hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale.ResultsThe average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases.ConclusionsDual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.

Both drugs are effective and well tolerated as NET in postmenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. NET could be considered a treatment option in this subpopulation. Cancer 2016;122:3032-3040. © 2016 American Cancer Society.