Purpose To assess the rate of underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and to explore the imaging, demographic, and histologic characteristics associated with lesion upgrade after surgery. Materials and Methods This retrospective study had institutional review board approval, and the need to obtain informed patient consent was waived. A total of 1509 MR imaging-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy procedures were performed in nine centers. A diagnosis of ADH was obtained after biopsy in 72 cases, and a diagnosis of DCIS was obtained in 118 cases. Pearson χ and Fisher tests were used to assess the association between demographic, MR imaging, and biopsy features and lesion upgrade. Univariate statistical analyses were performed, and each significant parameter was entered into a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Surgical excision was performed in 66 of the 72 ADH cases and in 117 of 118 DCIS cases. The ADH and DCIS underestimation rates were 25.8% (17 of 66) and 23.1% (27 of 117), respectively. Underestimation was 5.6-fold (odds ratio [OR] = 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 18.3) and 3.6-fold (OR = 3.6; 95% CI: 1.2, 10) more likely in mass (n = 20 for ADH and n = 20 for DCIS) than in non-mass (n = 46 for ADH and n = 97 for DCIS), compared with nonunderestimation, in ADH and DCIS respectively. At multivariate analysis, the use of a 9- or 10-gauge needle versus a 7- or 8-gauge needle was also an independently associated with underestimation when a diagnosis of ADH was made at MR imaging-guided biopsy. No other parameters were associated with of ADH or DCIS upgrade at surgery. Conclusion The rates of underestimation in ADH and DCIS diagnosed at MR imaging-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy were high, at around 25%, and were significantly associated with the presence of a mass at MR imaging. RSNA, 2016.

Indirect computed tomographic findings are helpful for differentiating gastroduodenal ulcer perforation from other causes of perforations.

Background: Combined digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (hereafter, DM plus DBT) has increased cancer detection rates when compared with those achieved with DM-only screening. However, there is limited literature on DBT as an adjunct to mammography in the staging of known breast cancers. Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of DM alone with that of DM plus DBT in the identification of additional ipsilateral and contralateral lesions in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective study (https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01881880) included 166 women with breast cancer (mean age, 59.5 years 6 11; age range, 40-87 years) and used the aforementioned techniques, with breast MRI and pathologic verification of all suspected lesions as the reference standards. Four radiologists independently reviewed the DM and DM plus DBT images using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems criteria for diagnosis of index lesions and presence of additional disease. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) obtained for DM and DM plus DBT were compared by using the McNemar test. Results: Twenty-four women (14%) exhibited multifocal lesions; 20 (12%), multicentric lesions; 39 (23%), additional ipsilateral lesions; and 18 (11%), bilateral lesions. The sensitivities were higher for DM plus DBT than for DM in the diagnosis of multicentric (51% [41 of 80] vs 37% [30 of 80], P = .002) and additional ipsilateral (52% [81 of 156] vs 44% [69 of 156], P = .007) lesions. The AUC was larger for DM plus DBT than for DM (0.74 vs 0.67, P = .02) in the diagnosis of bilateral breast cancer. No significant differences in specificity were noted. The added diagnostic value of DBT was limited to the group of women with nondense breasts: For diagnosis of ipsilateral lesions, AUC of DM plus DBT versus DM was 0.74 versus 0.70 (P = .04). For diagnosis of contralateral lesions, AUC of DM plus DBT verus DM was 0.76 versus 0.68 (P = .02). Conclusion: The combination of digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis improves diagnostic accuracy for additional ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer in women with nondense breasts.

No abstract

No abstract