Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide in women. This aggressive tumor can be categorized into two main groups—in situ and infiltrative, with the latter being the most common malignant lesions. The current use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was shown to provide the highest sensitivity in the detection and discrimination between benign vs. malignant lesions, when interpreted by expert radiologists. In this article, we present the prototype of a computer-aided detection/diagnosis (CAD) system that could provide valuable assistance to radiologists for discrimination between in situ and infiltrating tumors. The system consists of two main processing levels—(1) localization of possibly tumoral regions of interest (ROIs) through an iterative procedure based on intensity values (ROI Hunter), followed by a deep-feature extraction and classification method for false-positive rejection; and (2) characterization of the selected ROIs and discrimination between in situ and invasive tumor, consisting of Radiomics feature extraction and classification through a machine-learning algorithm. The CAD system was developed and evaluated using a DCE–MRI image database, containing at least one confirmed mass per image, as diagnosed by an expert radiologist. When evaluating the accuracy of the ROI Hunter procedure with respect to the radiologist-drawn boundaries, sensitivity to mass detection was found to be 75%. The AUC of the ROC curve for discrimination between in situ and infiltrative tumors was 0.70.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess whether AI-based models improve reproducibility of breast density (BD) and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) classification and to explore whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) can serve as a proof-of-concept platform for systemic risk surrogates. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 213 women (mean age 58.3 years; range 28–80) underwent CEM in 2022–2023. Histology was obtained when lesions were present (BI-RADS 4/5). Five radiologists independently graded BD and BPE; consensus served as the ground truth. Linear regression and a deep neural network (DNN) were compared with a simple linear baseline. Inter-reader agreement was measured with Fleiss’ κ. External validation was performed on 500 BI-RADS C/D cases from VinDr-Mammo targeted density endpoints. A secondary exploratory analysis tested a multi-output DNN to predict BD/BPE together with bone mineral density and systolic blood pressure surrogates. Results: Baseline inter-reader agreement was κ = 0.68 (BD) and κ = 0.54 (BPE). With AI support, agreement improved to κ = 0.82. Linear regression reduced the prediction error by 26% versus the baseline (MSE 0.641 vs. 0.864), while DNN achieved similar performance (MSE 0.638). AI assistance decreased false positives in C/D by 22% and shortened the reading time by 35% (6.3→4.1 min). Validation confirmed stability (MSE ~0.65; AUC 0.74–0.75). In exploratory analysis, surrogates correlated with DXA (r = 0.82) and sphygmomanometry (r = 0.76). Conclusions: AI significantly improves reproducibility and efficiency of BD/BPE assessments in CEM and supports feasibility of systemic risk profiling.

Background: Accurate preoperative tumor sizing is critical for optimal surgical planning in breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a promising modality, yet its accuracy relative to conventional imaging and pathology requires further validation. Objective: To prospectively evaluate the dimensional accuracy and reproducibility of CEM compared to mammography and ultrasound, using surgical pathology as the reference standard. Methods: A total of 205 patients with 267 breast lesions underwent preoperative CEM, mammography, and ultrasound. Tumor sizes were measured independently by two radiologists. Accuracy was assessed via mean absolute error (MAE), Pearson and Spearman correlations, and inter-reader agreement evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Gwet’s AC1. Sensitivity analyses included bootstrap confidence intervals and log-transformed data. The surgical impact of additional lesions detected by CEM was also analyzed. Results: CEM showed superior accuracy with a mean absolute error of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.24–0.68) compared to mammography (4.06 mm) and ultrasound (3.52 mm) (p < 0.00001). Pearson’s correlation between CEM and pathology was exceptionally high (r = 0.995; 95% CI: 0.994–0.996), with similar robustness after log transformation. Inter-reader agreement for CEM was excellent (ICC 0.93; Gwet’s AC1 ~0.96, 95% CI: 0.93–0.98). CEM detected additional lesions in 13.1% of patients, leading to altered surgical management in 6.4%. Background parenchymal enhancement was independently associated with measurement error. Conclusions: CEM provides highly accurate and reproducible tumor size estimation superior to conventional imaging modalities, with potential clinical impact through detection of additional lesions. Its ability to detect additional lesions not seen on mammography or ultrasound has direct implications for surgical decision making, with the potential to reduce reoperations and improve oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, high correlation values and selective patient cohorts warrant cautious interpretation. Further multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings and define CEM’s role in clinical practice.

Introduction: Breast density is a well-recognized factor in breast cancer risk assessment, with higher density linked to increased malignancy risk and reduced sensitivity of conventional mammography. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), observed in contrast-enhanced imaging, reflects physiological contrast uptake in non-pathologic breast tissue. While extensively characterized in breast MRI, the role of BPE in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) remains uncertain due to inconsistent findings regarding its correlation with breast density and cancer risk. Unlike breast density—standardized through the ACR BI-RADS lexicon—BPE lacks a uniform classification system in CEM, leading to variability in clinical interpretation and research outcomes. To address this gap, we introduce the BPE-CEM Standard Scale (BCSS), a structured four-tiered classification system specifically tailored to the two-dimensional characteristics of CEM, aiming to improve consistency and diagnostic alignment in BPE evaluation. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 213 patients who underwent mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) between May 2022 and June 2023 at the “A. Perrino” Hospital in Brindisi were included. Breast density was classified according to ACR BI-RADS (categories A–D). BPE was categorized into four levels: Minimal (< 10% enhancement), Light (10–25%), Moderate (25–50%), and Marked (> 50%). Three radiologists independently assessed BPE in a subset of 50 randomly selected cases to evaluate inter-observer agreement using Cohen’s kappa. Correlations between BPE, breast density, and age were examined through regression analysis. Results: BPE was Minimal in 57% of patients, Light in 31%, Moderate in 10%, and Marked in 2%. A significant positive association was found between higher breast density (BI-RADS C–D) and increased BPE (p < 0.05), whereas lower-density breasts (A–B) were predominantly associated with minimal or light BPE. Regression analysis confirmed a modest but statistically significant association between breast density and BPE (R² = 0.144), while age showed no significant effect. Inter-observer agreement for BPE categorization using the BCSS was excellent (κ = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78–0.92), supporting its reproducibility. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that breast density is a key determinant of BPE in CEM. The proposed BCSS offers a reproducible, four-level framework for standardized BPE assessment tailored to the imaging characteristics of CEM. By reducing variability in interpretation, the BCSS has the potential to improve diagnostic consistency and facilitate integration of BPE into personalized breast cancer risk models. Further prospective multicenter studies are needed to validate this classification and assess its clinical impact.

Objective: To compare the accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM), Mammography (MG), and Breast Ultrasound (US) in estimating the size of breast lesions requiring surgical intervention. The post-operative histological size of the lesion was used as the gold standard. Additionally, the impact of Additional Lesions (AL) on surgical planning (mastectomy vs. conservative surgery) was evaluated. Materials and Methods: The analysis included 267 non-benign lesions in 205 patients. All selected patients underwent both conventional imaging examinations (US and MG) and CEM. Subsequently, all patients were scheduled for surgery following a biopsy exam-ination. The maximum lesion diameter on imaging was measured by two experienced radiologists and then compared with the lesion size in the histological specimen obtained in the outpatient clinic. Results: Among the 267 breast lesions, 196 were evaluated using US, 196 with MG, and 267 with CEM. No statistically significant differences were found between lesion meas-urements obtained with CEM and those from the surgical specimen (p-value 0.07), whereas a significant difference was observed for MG and US (p < 0.001). In 28 out of 205 patients, 35 ALs were diagnosed. In 15 patients, the presence of ALs did not alter surgical planning; in the remaining 13 patients, 6 had one or more contralateral ALs, and in the other 7 patients, the ALs were in the ipsilateral breast. The impact of ALs on surgical outcomes was assessed. Conclusion: CEM is a reliable method for estimating breast lesion size, and the detection of ALs does not increase the number of mastectomies but rather aids in defining the appropriate surgical approach.

The assessment of breast density and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) remains challenged by substantial interobserver variability (κ=0.4-0.6). This study demonstrates how advanced computational methods can enhance diagnostic standardization while preserving radiologists' central role in decision-making. Analyzing 213 CEM cases, we ipotize to develop a system that improves inter-reader agreement by 40% (κ=0.82) and reduces prediction errors by 26%, with particular effectiveness in dense breasts (BI-RADS C/D categories). The findings highlight how AI-radiologist collaboration can optimize diagnostic accuracy without replacing clinical judgment, providing a more reliable approach especially for complex cases where interpretive variability most impacts patient management.