Chiara Del Frate

Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

The accuracy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is evaluated and imaging findings are correlated with pathologic findings. Fifteen patients enrolled in an experimental protocol of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy underwent clinical examination, mammography, sonography and dynamic MRI, performed in this order, before and respectively after 2 and 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Four radiologists, two for mammography, one for sonography and one for MR, examined the images, blinded to the results of the other examinations. All patients underwent radical or conservative surgery, and imaging findings were compared with pathologic findings. MRI identified 2/15 (13.3.%) clinically complete response (CR), 9/15 (60%) partial response (PR), 3/15 (20%) stable disease (SD) and 1/15 (6.7%) progressive disease. Mammography identified 1/15 (6.7%) clinically CR, 8/15 (53.3%) PR and 4/15 (27%) SD, and was not able to evaluate the disease in 2/15 (13%) cases. Sonography presented the same results as MRI. Therefore, MRI and sonography compared to mammography correctly identified residual disease in 100 vs. 86%. MRI resulted in two false-negative results because of the presence of microfoci of in situ ductal carcinoma (DCIS) and invasive lobular carcinoma (LCI). MRI was superior to mammography in cases of multifocal or multicentric disease (83 vs. 33%). Sonography performed after MRI improves the accuracy in evaluation of uncertain foci of multifocal disease seen on MR images with an increase of diagnostic accuracy from 73 to 84.5%. MRI assesses response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy better than traditional methods of physical examination and mammography.

Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI in Patients with Suspicious Microcalcifications on Mammography: Results of a Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to test dynamic MRI in evaluating mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred twelve patients with mammographically detected microcalcifications with BI-RADS category 5 (n = 78) or 4 (n = 34) lesions were studied at 17 centers a using 3D gradient-echo dynamic coronal technique (< or = 3 mm thickness) and 0.1 mmol/kg of gadoteridol. A pathologic sample was obtained in all cases. Agreement between the major diameter measured on mammography, MRI, or both and the major diameter measured at pathologic examination was calculated in 62 cases. RESULTS Of the 112 lesions, pathologic examination revealed 37 benign lesions, 33 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 42 invasive carcinomas. The specificity of MRI for benign lesions was 68%. Considering the subgroups of calcifications alone and calcifications associated with masses, the specificity values became 79% and 33%, respectively. The sensitivity of MRI for DCIS was 79%. Analysis of the two subgroups showed sensitivity values of 68% for calcifications alone and of 1% for calcifications associated with masses. The sensitivity for invasive carcinomas was 93%. Analysis of the two subgroups showed sensitivity values to be 92% for calcifications alone and 94% for calcifications associated with masses. Considering the overall results, the sensitivity of MRI was 87%; specificity, 68%; positive predictive value, 84%; negative predictive value, 71%; and accuracy, 80%. Considering the subgroups of calcifications alone and calcifications associated with masses, the sensitivity values became 80% and 97%; the positive predictive values, 86% and 82%; the negative predictive values, 71% and 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.99); and the accuracy values, 80% and 82% (95% CI, 0.66-0.92), respectively. An odds ratio (OR) of 13.54 (95% CI, 5.20-35.28) showed a raised risk of malignant breast tumor in subjects with positive MR examination of mammographically detected suspicious clusters of microcalcifications. The statistical analysis on each subgroup showed an OR of 15.07 (95% CI, 4.73-48.08) for calcifications alone and an OR of 14.00 (95% CI, 1.23-158.84) for calcifications associated with masses. Any significant improvement in the predictive ability of dynamic MRI depending on the extent of calcifications on mammography was not proved. Considering the 62 cases of proved malignancy with measured maximal diameter at pathologic examination, both mammography and MR examination seem to overestimate tumor extent. CONCLUSION The not-perfect sensitivity of MRI (87%), when applying our interpretation criteria and imaging sequences, is a crucial point that prevents us from clinical use of MRI in the diagnosis of mammographically detected microcalcifications.

Pseudomesotheliomatous angiosarcoma of the chest wall and pleura.

Angiosarcoma is a rare soft tissue sarcoma that usually occurs in deep soft tissues, breast, spleen, liver, and bone. Primary thoracic parietal localization of angiosarcoma is rare and prognosis is poor. In this report, we present the CT and PET features of a patient with pseudomesotheliomatous angiosarcoma of the chest wall and pleura, which, to the best of our knowledge, have not previously been described.

Contrast media in liver sonography: correlation with enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging.

Both color Doppler sonography and magnetic resonance are imaging techniques which do not use ionizing radiations, but despite this common feature there remain many differences between them. Thus, color Doppler sonography is a cost-effective technique using mechanical waves and providing real-time images while magnetic resonance imaging is much more expensive, uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency energy and provides static images. The former method is very sensitive in detecting focal liver lesions > 1 cm, but its specificity in characterization is not as good, not even with the color Doppler technique. The main differences between color Doppler sonography, with and/or without echocontrast agents, and contrast-enhanced (Gadolinium chelates) dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in focal liver lesions can be summarized as follows: (1) magnetic resonance imaging depicts tumor vascularization only after paramagnetic contrast media injection. Enhanced images completely depend upon the contrast agent and cannot be achieved without it. In contrast, color Doppler signal is not modified by the contrast agent, it just becomes stronger. (2) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance signal (as well as contrast-enhanced computed tomography signal) provides more pieces of information than color Doppler signal about the flow characteristics of liver nodules--i.e. it shows not only blood flow (hyper-/hypovascular nodule), but also the interstitial spread of the agent and its wash-out. For example, hepatocellular carcinoma and focal nodular hyperplasia have similar perfusion while agent spread and wash-out decrease very quickly in the former and more slowly in the latter, except for the low decrease of the central scar. (3) Color Doppler technology improvements, higher sensitivity to slow flows and better signal/noise ratio reduce the applications of contrast-enhanced sonography in focal liver lesions because the agents modify only sensitivity and not the imaging in slow flow studies. (4) The higher cost of contrast studies is justified only in selected cases, namely treatment follow-up in the lesions with rich pretreatment vascularization. Finally, the higher cost of contrast magnetic resonance studies is justified to increase sensitivity and especially to allow lesion characterization.

Myometrial Abscess Caused by Diverticulitis: Percutaneous Computed Tomography–guided Catheter Drainage

AbstractPercutaneous computed tomography–guided catheter drainage of abdominal abscesses related to diverticular disease provides confirmation of diagnosis and preoperative patient stabilization, and may be curative. Although a frequent cause of pericolonic abscess, diverticulitis rarely results in

Comparison between CRT and LCD displays for full-field-digital-mammography (FFDM) interpretation

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy and diagnostic accuracy of BARCO LCD 5Mpixel displays, compared to BARCO CRT 5Mpixel displays in full-field-digital-mammography (FFDM) interpretation. Material and Methods: FFDM mammograms obtained by 100 patients, were analyzed by three independent radiologists experienced in breast imaging, using two different CRT and LCD displays. All cases were selected by a fourth radiologist in order to cover several possible ages and types of breast. Half of cases were negative and half were positive for malignancy, proven by percutaneous biopsy. Readers were blinded to history of patients, ultrasound examination and biopsy results. To minimize recall bias, an interval of at least 30 days between interpretations of each case on two different monitors was chosen. Each reader evaluated cases classifying them according the ACR BIRADS categories. Moreover, they assigned a rate (0-100) corresponding to the Probability of Malignancy (POM) of each case classified into BIRADS categories 3 to 5. Finally, they assigned a rate (0-100) corresponding to reading confidence. Analysis included ROC curves of POM for each doctor and for pooled data, sensitivity and specificity for the BIRADS≥3 and BIRADS≥4 thresholds for each doctor and for pooled data, and finally main results of “Multireader- Multicase ROC Analysis Of Variance”. For each analysis a comparison was made between the two monitors. Results: No statistical significance was seen between the two displays regarding POM, sensitivity and specificity, nor for single reader either for pooled data. Conclusions: This study provides a reasonable assurance that the examined CRT and LCD display systems are comparable for FFDM interpretation.