Contraindications to CEDMCEDM should be avoided in pregnant women, those with history of allergy to iodinated contrast media, and those with renal insufficiency. Contrast administrationA trained technologist obtains the peripheral intravenous access preferably using a 18-gauge needle. A dose of 1.5 mL/kg bodyweight of iodinated contrast media (Omnipaque ABSTRACT This pictorial essay illustrates an overview of the basic technique used in acquiring dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) images and its potential clinical applications in regular practice. CEDM may be used as a low-cost alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as a problem-solving tool in clinical practice and for therapeutic planning of breast cancer, which may include high-risk screening, dense breast evaluation, mammographically equivocal lesions, local staging, treatment response evaluation, and post treatment follow-up. We share our experience of CEDM at a tertiary care cancer hospital.

Objective: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard. Methods: It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis. Results: This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 ± 12 years (age range 24–72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057); specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG. Conclusion: CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast. Advances in knowledge: CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) and esophagectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus (EC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).Methods: Patients with EC and GEJ tumors who received NCRT and underwent esophagectomy between January 2010 to March 2021 were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the factors associated with pCR by comparing the patients who achieved pCR (pCR group) with those who did not achieve pCR (non-pCR group).