The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann–Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19–2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32–2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23–36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography.

Background: Radiology is an essential tool in the management of a patient. The aim of this manuscript was to build structured report (SR) Mammography based in Breast Cancer. Methods: A working team of 16 experts (group A) was composed to create a SR for Mammography Breast Cancer. A further working group of 4 experts (group B), blinded to the activities of the group A, was composed to assess the quality and clinical usefulness of the SR final draft. Modified Delphi process was used to assess level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results: The final SR version was built by including n = 2 items in Personal Data, n = 4 items in Setting, n = 2 items in Comparison with previous breast examination, n = 19 items in Anamnesis and clinical context; n = 10 items in Technique; n = 1 item in Radiation dose; n = 5 items Parenchymal pattern; n = 28 items in Description of the finding; n = 12 items in Diagnostic categories and Report and n = 1 item in Conclusions. The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 and 807 in the second round. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.82 in the second round. About the quality evaluation, the overall mean score of the experts was 3.3. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.90. Conclusions: Structured reporting improves the quality, clarity and reproducibility of reports across departments, cities, countries and internationally and will assist patient management and improve breast health care and facilitate research.

Background: About 30% of new non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases are diagnosed at a locally advanced stage, which includes a highly heterogeneous group of patients with a wide spectrum of treatment options. The management of stage III NSCLC involves a multidisciplinary team, adequate staging, and a careful patient selection for surgery or radiation therapy integrated with systemic treatment. Methods: This is a single-center observational retrospective and prospective study including a consecutive series of stage III NSCLC patients who were referred to the Veneto Institute of Oncology and University Hospital of Padova (Italy) between 2012 and 2021. We described clinico-pathological characteristics, therapeutic pathways, and treatment responses in terms of radiological response in the entire study population and in terms of pathological response in patients who underwent surgery after induction therapy. Furthermore, we analysed survival outcomes in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 301 patients were included. The majority of patients received surgical multimodality treatment (n = 223, 74.1%), while the remaining patients (n = 78, 25.9%) underwent definitive CRT followed or not by durvalumab as consolidation therapy. At data cut-off, 188 patients (62.5%) relapsed and the median RFS (mRFS) of the entire population was 18.2 months (95% CI: 15.83–20.57). At the time of analyses 140 patients (46.5%) were alive and the median OS (mOS) was 44.7 months (95% CI: 38.4–51.0). A statistically significant difference both in mRFS (p = 0.002) and in mOS (p < 0.001) was observed according to the therapeutic pathway in the entire population, and selecting patients treated after 2018, a significant difference in mRFS (p = 0.006) and mOS (p < 0.001) was observed according to treatment modality. Furthermore, considering only patients diagnosed with stage IIIB-C (N = 131, 43.5%), there were significant differences both in mRFS (p = 0.047) and in mOS (p = 0.022) as per the treatment algorithm. The mRFS of the unresectable population was 16.3 months (95% CI: 11.48–21.12), with a significant difference among subgroups (p = 0.030) in favour of patients who underwent the PACIFIC-regimen; while the mOS was 46.5 months (95% CI: 26.46–66.65), with a significant difference between two subgroups (p = 0.003) in favour of consolidation immunotherapy. Conclusions: Our work provides insights into the management and the survival outcomes of stage III NSCLC over about 10 years. We found that the choice of radical treatment impacts on outcome, thus suggesting the importance of appropriate staging at diagnosis, patient selection, and of the multidisciplinary approach in the decision-making process. Our results confirmed that the PACIFIC trial and the following introduction of durvalumab as consolidation treatment may be considered as a turning point for several improvements in the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of stage III NSCLC patients.

Digital breast tomosynthesis at first round and at repeat screening depicted a higher proportion of stage I cancers than screening with digital mammography. Background Few results are available about subsequent outcomes after screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a screening round with DBT plus...

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (DM) or tomosynthesis (DBT) images. A total of 150 women who underwent CEM between March 2019 and December 2020, having at least a DM/DBT study performed before/after CEM, were included. Low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and DM/DBT images were processed with automatic software to obtain the VBD. VBDs from the paired datasets were compared by Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate regression model was applied to analyze the relationship between VBD differences and multiple independent variables certainly or potentially affecting VBD. Median VBD was comparable for LE-CEM and DM/DBT (12.73% vs. 12.39%), not evidencing any statistically significant difference (p = 0.5855). VBD differences between LE-CEM and DM were associated with significant differences of glandular volume, breast thickness, compression force and pressure, contact area, and nipple-to-posterior-edge distance, i.e., variables reflecting differences in breast positioning (coefficient of determination 0.6023; multiple correlation coefficient 0.7761). Volumetric breast density was obtained from low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and was not significantly different from volumetric breast density measured from standard mammograms.