Literature DB >> 35241542

Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography: A Retrospective Analysis and a Pictorial Review of Clinical Cases.

Rosaria Meucci1,2, Chiara Adriana Pistolese1, Tommaso Perretta1, Gianluca Vanni2, Emanuela Beninati1, Federica DI Tosto1, Maria Lina Serio1, Aurelia Caliandro1, Marco Materazzo3, Marco Pellicciaro2, Oreste Claudio Buonomo2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite the popularity of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), univocal classification of the background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), a bilateral enhancement of the normal breast parenchyma after contrast administration, is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the application of BPE Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Magnetic Resonance (BI-RADS-MR) score for the CESM BPE. Moreover, a pictorial review of four different cases with CESM is provided. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database of all women undergoing digital mammography (DM) and CESM in our institution between 2016 and 2019. DM and CESM were classified by two experienced radiologists.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference between DM breast density and BPE CESM classification was found. Agreement between readers ranged from substantial to almost perfect.
CONCLUSION: BIRADS-RM score for the CESM BPE represents a handy option for radiologists with high inter-reader and DM agreement. Copyright
© 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contrast enhanced spectral mammography; background parenchymal enhancement; breast cancer; breast glandular density; breast imaging-reporting and data system

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35241542      PMCID: PMC8931929          DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12773

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  In Vivo        ISSN: 0258-851X            Impact factor:   2.155


  30 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting.

Authors:  S L Tennant; J J James; E J Cornford; Y Chen; H C Burrell; L J Hamilton; C Girio-Fragkoulakis
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2016-06-11       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Evidence for reducing cancer-specific mortality due to screening for breast cancer in Europe: A systematic review.

Authors:  Nadine Zielonke; Andrea Gini; Erik E L Jansen; Ahti Anttila; Nereo Segnan; Antonio Ponti; Piret Veerus; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Impact of number and site of lymph node invasion on survival of adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Benedetto Ielpo; Andres Sanchez Pernaute; Stefano Elia; Oreste Claudio Buonomo; Luis Diez Valladares; Elia Perez Aguirre; Giuseppe Petrella; Antonio Torres Garcia
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-02-13

4.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Comparison of round smooth and shaped micro-textured implants in terms of quality of life and aesthetic outcomes in women undergoing breast reconstruction: a single-centre prospective study.

Authors:  Oreste Claudio Buonomo; Ljuba Morando; Marco Materazzo; Gianluca Vanni; Giorgio Pistilli; Ludovico Palla; Camilla Di Pasquali; Giuseppe Petrella
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-02-15

6.  A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy.

Authors:  Kimberly J Van Zee; Donna-Marie E Manasseh; Jose L B Bevilacqua; Susan K Boolbol; Jane V Fey; Lee K Tan; Patrick I Borgen; Hiram S Cody; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Bethany L Niell; Phoebe E Freer; Robert Jared Weinfurtner; Elizabeth Kagan Arleo; Jennifer S Drukteinis
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.

Authors:  Elżbieta Łuczyńska; Sylwia Heinze-Paluchowska; Edward Hendrick; Sonia Dyczek; Janusz Ryś; Krzysztof Herman; Paweł Blecharz; Jerzy Jakubowicz
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-05-12

9.  Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Coronavirus-Era: Alert From Italy.

Authors:  Gianluca Vanni; Marco Pellicciaro; Marco Materazzo; Leonardo Palombi; Oreste Claudio Buonomo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?

Authors:  Jacopo Nori; Maninderpal Kaur Gill; Chiara Vignoli; Giulia Bicchierai; Diego De Benedetto; Federica Di Naro; Ermanno Vanzi; Cecilia Boeri; Vittorio Miele
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-02-07
View more
  1 in total

1.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and tumor size assessment: a valuable tool for appropriate surgical management of breast lesions.

Authors:  Luca Nicosia; Anna Carla Bozzini; Simone Palma; Marta Montesano; Giulia Signorelli; Filippo Pesapane; Antuono Latronico; Vincenzo Bagnardi; Samuele Frassoni; Claudia Sangalli; Mariagiorgia Farina; Enrico Cassano
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 6.313

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.