Contrast-enhanced mammography showed high diagnostic performance in breast cancer detection, particularly when lesion morphologic characteristics and enhancement from both low-energy and recombined... Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a syste...

We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003–January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43–2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10–30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable.

Based on breast imaging reports written in three languages, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard achieved moderate agreement with human reader–assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories but also yielded a high percentage of discordant category assignments that would negatively impact clinical management.

Given the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia, management of these lesions with imaging follow-up is not advisable; surgical excision is preferred. Background Management of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is an unresolved clinical issue. Purpose To calculate the pooled upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pu...

Chest x-ray (CXR) can play a role in diagnosing patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but only few small-scale studies are available. We assessed the diagnostic performance of CXR in consecutive patients presenting at the emergency room at the Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy from February 24 to April 8, 2020 for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The results of CXR were classified as positive or negative according to the original prospective radiologic reports. To overcome the limitations of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) swab, especially oscillating sensitivity, we added the information obtained from phone calls to discharged patients with negative initial RT-PCR. Thus, we included 535 patients with concomitant CXR and RT-PCR on admission (aged 65±17 y; 340 males, 195 females), resulting in 408 RT-PCR positive and 127 negative patients at the composite reference standard. Original CXR reports showed an 89.0% sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI], 85.5%-91.8%), 60.6% specificity (95% CI, 51.6%-69.2%), 87.9% positive predictive value (95% CI, 84.4%-90.9%), and 63.1% negative predictive value (95% CI, 53.9%-71.7%). The adoption of CXR alongside RT-PCR to triage patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection could foster a safe and efficient workflow, counteracting possible false negative RT-PCR results.