Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging

Purpose Breast cancer diagnosis often involves assessing the locoregional spread of the disease through MRI, as multicentricity, multifocality and/or bilaterality are increasingly common. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a potential alternative method. This study compares the perfo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiologia medica 2024-04, Vol.129 (4), p.558-565
Main Authors: Terzoni, Andrea, Basile, Paola, Gambaro, Anna Clelia, Attanasio, Silvia, Rampi, Anna Maria, Brambilla, Marco, Carriero, Alessandro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Breast cancer
Breast Radiology
Diagnostic Radiology
Imaging
Interventional Radiology
Lesions
Magnetic resonance imaging
Mammography
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neuroradiology
Radiology
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Breast cancer diagnosis often involves assessing the locoregional spread of the disease through MRI, as multicentricity, multifocality and/or bilaterality are increasingly common. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a potential alternative method. This study compares the performance of CEM and MRI in preoperative staging of women with confirmed breast carcinoma. Patients were also asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire to rate their comfort level with each investigation. Methods From May 1st, 2021 to May 1st, 2022, we enrolled 70 women with confirmed breast carcinoma who were candidates for surgery. For pre-operative locoregional staging, all patients underwent CEM and MRI examination, which two radiologists evaluated blindly. We further investigated all suspicious locations for disease spread, identified by both CEM and MRI, with a second-look ultrasound (US) and eventual histological examination. Results In our study cohort, MRI and CEM identified 114 and 102 areas of focal contrast enhancement, respectively. A true discrepancy between MRI and CEM occurred in 9 out of 70 patients examined. MRI reported 8 additional lesions that proved to be false positives on second-look US in 6 patients, while it identified 4 lesions that were not detected by CEM and were pathological (true positives) in 3 patients. Conclusions CEM showed results comparable to MRI in the staging of breast cancer in our study population, with a high rate of patient acceptability.
ISSN:1826-6983
0033-8362
1826-6983
DOI:10.1007/s11547-024-01789-9