To evaluate the possibility of reducing unnecessary biopsies in patients with BI-RADS 3 lesions by implementing Kaiser score (KS). In this retrospective, single-center study, we included 79 female patients with BI-RADS 3 lesions and risk factors who underwent biopsy following magnetic resonance imaging. Three readers (two experienced breast radiologists and a radiology resident) blinded evaluated the lesions using KS. Lesions with a KS ≤ 4 were considered benign. Results were compared with the histopathological findings (gold standard) assessing sensitivity and specificity along with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each reader. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa with 95 % CIs. Moreover, Cohen's kappa was used to assess concordance between two readers at time. 79 female patients (mean age, 50.9 ± 12.2 (standard deviation)) were evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the three readers was excellent: 0.99, 0.99, and 0.90), respectively. The sensitivity of the two breast radiologists and the resident was 0.92 (95 % CI: 0.62 - 0.99), 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95 - 1.00) and 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.42 - 0.95), respectively, while the specificity was 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95---1.00), 0.99 (95 % CI: 0.92 - 1.00), and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95 - 1.00) respectively. By using a KS ≤ 4 value to indicate benignity, 66 to 67 biopsies (84 to 85 % of all the biopsies) would have been avoided. Inter-reader concordance via Fleiss' kappa was 0.792 (95 % CI: 0.68 - 0.91). The implementation of KS could have spared 84-85% of biopsies, proving to be a quick, user-friendly tool with strong inter-observer agreement and high specificity.

PURPOSE: Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions. METHODS: We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. The search engine was activated using the following keywords: “CESM”, “CEM”, “CEDM”, “Contrast mammography” for CEM, “DCE-MRI”, “Contrast Enhancement MRI” for CEMR, excluding reviews, book chapters and meta-analyses. From the total number of publications, we made a preliminary selection based on titles and abstracts and excluded all articles published in languages other than English and all experimental studies performed on surgical specimen or animal population, as well as all articles for which the extended version was not available. Two readers evaluated all the articles and compiled a pre-compiled form accordingly. RESULTS: After a preliminary collection of 571 CEM publications, 118 articles were selected, relating to an overall population of 21,178 patients. From a total of 3063 CEMR publications, 356 articles relating to an overall population of 45,649 patients were selected. The most used contrast agents are Iohexol for CEM (39.83%) and Gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) for CEMR (32.5%). Regarding the CEM contrast administration protocol, in 84.7% of cases a dose of 1.5 mL/kg was used with an infusion rate of 2–3 mL/s. Regarding the CEMR infusion protocol, in 71% of cases a dose of 1 mmol/kg was used at an infusion rate of 2–4 mL/s. Twelve out of 118 CEM articles reported allergic reactions, involving 29 patients (0.13%). In DCE-MRI, only one out of 356 articles reported allergic reactions, involving two patients (0.004%). No severe reactions were observed in either cohort of exams. CONCLUSIONS: CEM and CEMR are essential contrast methods to evaluate breast diseases. However, from the literature analysis, although there are preferences on the uses of the contrast agent (Iohexol for CESM, G-DTPA for CEMR), a wide range of molecules are still used in contrast methods, with different administration protocols. Based on the collected data, it is possible to state that both methods are safe, and no severe reactions were observed in our evaluation.