BackgroundNeoadjuvant-chemotherapy (NAC) is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced breast carcinomas. Accurate assessment of disease response is fundamental to increase the chances of successful breast-conserving surgery and to avoid local recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast-enhanced-MRI (MRI) in the evaluation of tumor response to NAC.MethodsThis prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained. Fifty-four consenting women with breast cancer and indication of NAC were consecutively enrolled between October 2012 and December 2014. Patients underwent both CESM and MRI before, during and after NAC. MRI was performed first, followed by CESM within 3 days. Response to therapy was evaluated for each patient, comparing the size of the residual lesion measured on CESM and MRI performed after NAC to the pathological response on surgical specimens (gold standard), independently of and blinded to the results of the other test. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using Lin’s coefficient. The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was tested at each step of the study, before, during and after NAC. And last of all, the variation in the largest dimension of the tumor on CESM and MRI was assessed according to the parameters set in RECIST 1.1 criteria, focusing on pathological complete response (pCR).ResultsA total of 46 patients (85%) completed the study. CESM predicted pCR better than MRI (Lin’s coefficient 0.81 and 0.59, respectively). Both methods tend to underestimate the real extent of residual tumor (mean 4.1mm in CESM, 7.5mm in MRI). The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was 0.96, 0.94 and 0.76 before, during and after NAC respectively. The distinction between responders and non-responders with CESM and MRI was identical for 45/46 patients. In the assessment of CR, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84%, respectively, for CESM, and 87% and 60% for MRI.ConclusionCESM and MRI lesion size measurements were highly correlated. CESM seems at least as reliable as MRI in assessing the response to NAC, and may be an alternative if MRI is contraindicated or its availability is limited.

Purpose To compare digital mammography (DM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus DM alone for breast cancer screening in the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis trial, a two-arm test-and-treat randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods For this trial, eligible women (45-70 years old) who previously participated in the Reggio Emilia screening program were invited for mammography. Consenting women were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo DBT+DM or DM (both of which involved two projections and double reading). Women were treated according to the decision at DBT+DM. Sensitivity, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) at baseline were determined; the ratios of these rates for DBT+DM relative to DM alone were determined. Results From March 2014 to March 2016, 9777 women were recruited to the DM+DBT arm of the study, and 9783 women were recruited to the DM arm (mean age, 56.2 vs 56.3 years). Recall was 3.5% in both arms; detection was 4.5 per 1000 (44 of 9783) and 8.6 per 1000 (83 of 9777), respectively (+89%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 31, 72). PPV of the recall was 13.0% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .0002); 72 of 80 cancers found in the DBT+DM arm and with complete DBT imaging were positive at least at one DBT-alone reading. The greater detection rate for DM+DBT was stronger for ductal carcinoma in situ (+180%, 95% CI: 1, 665); it was notable for small and medium invasive cancers, but not for large ones (+94 [95% CI: 6, 254]; +122 [95% CI: 18, 316]; -12 [95% CI: -68, 141]; for invasive cancers < 10 mm, 10-19 mm, and ≥ 20 mm, respectively). Conclusion DBT+DM depicts 90% more cancers in a population previously screened with DM, with similar recall rates.

Objective To assess sensitivity/specificity of CT vs RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia in a prospective Italian cohort of symptomatic patients during the outbreak peak. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we included all consecutive patients who presented to the ER between March 13 and 23 for suspected COVID-19 and underwent CT and RT-PCR within 3 days. Using a structured report, radiologists prospectively classified CTs in highly suggestive, suggestive, and non-suggestive of COVID-19 pneumonia. Ground-glass, consolidation, and visual extension of parenchymal changes were collected. Three different RT-PCR-based reference standard definitions were used. Oxygen saturation level, CRP, LDH, and blood cell counts were collected and compared between CT/RT-PCR classes. Results The study included 696 patients (41.4% women; age 59 ± 15.8 years): 423/454 (93%) patients with highly suggestive CT, 97/ 127 (76%) with suggestive CT, and 31/115 (27%) with non-suggestive CT had positive RT-PCR. CT sensitivity ranged from 73 to 77% and from 90 to 94% for high and low positivity threshold, respectively. Specificity ranged from 79 to 84% for high positivity threshold and was about 58% for low positivity threshold. PPV remained ≥ 90% in all cases. Ground-glass was more frequent in patients with positive RT-PCR in all CT classes. Blood tests were significantly associated with RT-PCR and CT classes. Leukocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and platelets decreased, CRP and LDH increased from non-suggestive to suggestive CT classes. Conclusions During the outbreak peak (in a high-prevalence setting), CT presented high PPV and may be considered a good reference to recognize COVID-19 patients while waiting for RT-PCR confirmation. Key Points • During the epidemic peak, CT showed high positive predictive value and sensitivity for COVID-19 pneumonia when compared with RT-PCR. • Blood tests were significantly associated with RT-PCR and CT classes.