Background: The multifocality and multicentrality of breast cancer (MFMCC) are the significant aspects that determine a specialist’s choice between applying breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or performing a mastectomy. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women diagnosed with breast cancer before qualifying for surgical intervention to visualize other (additional) cancer foci. Methods: The study included 60 breast cancer cases out of 630 patients initially who underwent surgery due to breast cancer from January 2015 to April 2019. MG, CESM, and MRI were compared with each other in terms of the presence of MFMCC and assessed for compliance with the postoperative histopathological examination (HP). Results: Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of MFMCC in 33/60 (55%) patients. The sensitivity of MG in detecting MFMCC was 50%, and its specificity was 95.83%. For CESM, the sensitivity was 85.29%, and the specificity was 96.15%. For MRI, all the above-mentioned parameters were higher as follows: sensitivity—91.18%; specificity—92.31%. Conclusions: In patients with MFMCC, both CESM and MRI are highly sensitive in the detection of additional cancer foci. Both CESM and MRI change the extent of surgical intervention in every fourth patient.

Cancer is one of the leading public health problems globally. Since time is of the essence in oncology, the sooner an accurate diagnosis is made, the better the prognosis for patients. There is a growing need to find a flawless and fast imaging method for cancer detection, but also for its evaluation during treatment. In this respect, the possibilities and novelties of magnetic resonance imaging are particularly promising. Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AMRI) protocols have aroused universal interest as a compromise between scanning time reduction and preservation of image quality. Shorter protocols focused on the detection of suspicious lesions with the most sensitive sequences could provide a diagnostic performance similar to the one of the standard protocol. The purpose of this article is to review the ongoing accomplishments in the use of AMRI protocols in liver metastases and HCC detection.

Background: Evaluating the tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is key to planning further therapy of breast cancer. Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of low-energy and subtraction contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images in the detection of complete response (CR) for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer. Methods: A total of 63 female patients were qualified for our retrospective analysis. Low-energy and subtraction CESM images just before the beginning of NAC and as a follow-up examination 2 weeks before the end of chemotherapy were compared with one another and assessed for compliance with the postoperative histopathological examination (HP). The response to preoperative chemotherapy was evaluated based on the RECIST 1.1 criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Results: Low-energy images tend to overestimate residual lesions (6.28 mm) and subtraction images tend to underestimate them (2.75 mm). The sensitivity of low-energy images in forecasting CR amounted to 33.33%, while the specificity was 92.86%. In the case of subtraction CESM, the sensitivity amounted to 85.71% and the specificity to 71.42%. Conclusions: CESM is characterized by high sensitivity in the assessment of CR after NAC. The use of only morphological assessment is insufficient. CESM correlates well with the size of residual lesions on histopathological examination but tends to underestimate the dimensions.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising, digital breast imaging method for planning surgeries. The study aimed at comparing digital mammography (MG) with CESM as predictive factors in visualizing multifocal-multicentric cancers (MFMCC) before determining the surgery extent. We analyzed 999 patients after breast cancer surgery to compare MG and CESM in terms of detecting MFMCC. Moreover, these procedures were assessed for their conformity with postoperative histopathology (HP), calculating their sensitivity and specificity. The question was which histopathological types of breast cancer were more frequently characterized by multifocality–multicentrality in comparable techniques as regards the general number of HP-identified cancers. The analysis involved the frequency of post-CESM changes in the extent of planned surgeries. In the present study, MG revealed 48 (4.80%) while CESM 170 (17.02%) MFMCC lesions, subsequently confirmed in HP. MG had MFMCC detecting sensitivity of 38.51%, specificity 99.01%, PPV (positive predictive value) 85.71%, and NPV (negative predictive value) 84.52%. The respective values for CESM were 87.63%, 94.90%, 80.57% and 96.95%. Moreover, no statistically significant differences were found between lobular and NST cancers (27.78% vs. 21.24%) regarding MFMCC. A treatment change was required by 20.00% of the patients from breast-conserving to mastectomy, upon visualizing MFMCC in CESM. In conclusion, mammography offers insufficient diagnostic sensitivity for detecting additional cancer foci. The high diagnostic sensitivity of CESM effectively assesses breast cancer multifocality/multicentrality and significantly changes the extent of planned surgeries. The multifocality/multicentrality concerned carcinoma, lobular and invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST) cancers with similar incidence rates, which requires further confirmation.

Analysis of the morphology of lesions classified into the BI-RADS 4 category and assessment of the possibility of downgrade the BI-RADS category in those that did not show enhancement on recombinant contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images. The retrospective, single-center study included 528 patients who underwent a core needle biopsy performed from January 2017 to November 2022 due to a breast lesion classified as BI-RADS 4 on CEM. Patients' electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed. Individual lesions were classified into the morphological categories of mass, non-mass, and microcalcifications. Sensitivity, specificity, positive as well as negative predictive values were calculated for the whole group and individual morphological categories. The influence of the lesions' diameter on the results was analyzed. CEM NPV for the whole group was 93.9% (±95% CI: 90.0-96.4), for mass lesions 100% (±95% CI: 94.5-100), for non-mass lesions 97.8% (±95% CI: 87.0-99.9) and 87.9% (±95% CI: 80.3-93.0) for microcalcifications. Given that 230 out of 383 benign lesions were not contrast-enhancing, 60.1% of unnecessary CNBs would have been correctly avoided. CEM sensitivity for lesions < 20 mm was lower than for lesions ≥ 20 mm and was respectively 86.6% (±95% CI: 76.8-92.8) vs 94.6% (±95% CI: 86.0-98.2), respectively. CEM is characterized by high sensitivity in the detection of malignant lesions in the case of lesions with mass and non-mass morphology. The high NPV for recombinant images suggests that in the case of these lesions, the lack of enhancement supports the benign nature of the lesion and may lead to a downgrade of the BI-RADS category.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) recombinant images in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population.Material and methods: 792 patients with 808 breast lesions, in whom the final decision on core-needle biopsy was made based on CEM, and who received the result of histopathological examination, were qualified for a single-centre, retrospective study. Patient electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical and imaging findings, and histopathology results. The CEM images were reassessed and assigned to the appropriate American College of Radiology (ACR) density categories.Results: Extremely dense breasts were present in 86 (10.9%) patients. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of malignant lesions in 52.6% of cases in the entire group of patients and 43% in the group of extremely dense breasts. CEM incorrectly classified the lesion as false negative in 16/425 (3.8%) cases for the whole group, and in 1/37 (2.7%) cases for extremely dense breasts. The sensitivity of CEM for the group of all patients was 96.2%, speci­ficity – 60%, positive predictive values (PPV) – 72.8%, and negative predictive values (NPV) – 93.5%. In the group of patients with extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of the method was 97.3%, specificity – 59.2%, PPV – 64.3%, and NPV – 96.7%.Conclusions: CEM is characterised by high sensitivity and NPV in detecting malignant lesions regardless of the type of breast density. In patients with extremely dense breasts, CEM could serve as a complementary or additional examination in the absence or low availability of MRI.