VABB may not be considered a therapeutic procedure, even in the case of complete removal of microcalcifications. However, a complete removal of microcalcifications may result in low rates of underestimation of malignancy and may consequently increase the diagnostic accuracy of the diagnostic procedure.

Radiomics is an emerging translational field of medicine based on the extraction of high-dimensional data from radiological images, with the purpose to reach reliable models to be applied into clinical practice for the purposes of diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of disease response to treatment. We aim to provide the basic information on radiomics to radiologists and clinicians who are focused on breast cancer care, encouraging cooperation with scientists to mine data for a better application in clinical practice. We investigate the workflow and clinical application of radiomics in breast cancer care, as well as the outlook and challenges based on recent studies. Currently, radiomics has the potential ability to distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions, to predict breast cancer’s molecular subtypes, the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the lymph node metastases. Even though radiomics has been used in tumor diagnosis and prognosis, it is still in the research phase and some challenges need to be faced to obtain a clinical translation. In this review, we discuss the current limitations and promises of radiomics for improvement in further research.

No abstract

Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%–91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%–93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%–88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.