Mammography screening is a cost-efficient modality with high sensitivity for detecting impalpable cancer with microcalcifications, and results in reduced mortality rates. However, the probability of finding microcalcifications without associated cancerous masses varies. We retrospectively evaluated the diagnosis and cancer probability of the non-mass screened microcalcifications by dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM). With ethical approval from our hospital, we enrolled the cases of DE-CESM for analysis under the following inclusion criteria: (1) referrals due to screened BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications; (2) having DE-CESM prior to stereotactic biopsy; (3) no associated mass found by sonography and physical examination; and (4) pathology-based diagnosis using stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. We analyzed the added value of post-contrast enhancement on DE-CESM. A total of 94 biopsed lesions were available for analysis in our 87 women, yielding 27 cancers [19 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 8 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)], 32 pre-malignant and 35 benign lesions. Of these 94 lesions, 33 showed associated enhancement in DE-CESM while the other 61 did not. All 8 IDC (100%) and 16 of 19 DCIS (84.21%) showed enhancement, but the other 3 DCIS (15.79%) did not. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 88.89%, 86.56%, 72.72%, 95.08% and 87.24%, respectively. The performances of DE-CESM on both amorphous and pleomorphic microcalcifications were satisfactory (AUC 0.8 and 0.92, respectively). The pleomorphous microcalcifications with enhancement showed higher positive predictive value (90.00% vs 46.15%, p = 0.013) and higher cancer probability than the amorphous microcalcifications (46.3% VS 15.1%). The Odds Ratio was 4.85 (95% CI: 1.84–12.82). DE-CESM might provide added value in assessing the non-mass screened breast microcalcification, with enhancement favorable to the diagnosis of cancers or lack of enhancement virtually diagnostic for non-malignant lesions or noninvasive subgroup cancers.

Background: The contrast-enhanced mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) manifesting microcalcifications only on mammograms were evaluated to determine whether they could predict IDC underestimation. Methods: We reviewed patients who underwent mammography-guided biopsy on suspicious breast microcalcifications only and received contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) within 2 weeks before the biopsy. Those patients who were proven to have cancers (DCIS or IDC) by biopsy and subsequently had surgical treatment in our hospital were included for analysis. The presence or absence, size, morphology and texture of enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography were reviewed by consensus of two radiologists. Results: A total of 49 patients were included for analysis. Forty patients (81.6%) showed enhancement, including 18 (45%) DCIS and 22 (55%) IDC patients. All nine unenhanced cancers were pure DCIS. Pure DCIS showed 72.22% nonmass enhancement and 83.33% pure ground glass enhancement. IDC showed more mass (72.2% vs. 27.8%) and solid enhancements (83.33% vs. 16.67%). The cancer and texture of enhancement were significantly different between pure DCIS and IDC, with moderate diagnostic performance for the former (p-value < 0.01, AUC = 0.66, sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 39%) and the latter (p-value < 0.01, AUC = 0.74, sensitivity = 65%, specificity = 83%). Otherwise, pure DCIS showed a significant difference in enhanced texture compared with upgraded IDC and IDC (p = 0.0226 and 0.0018, respectively). Conclusions: Nonmass and pure ground glass enhancements were closely related to pure DCIS, and cases showing mass and unpurified solid enhancements should be suspected as IDC. Unenhanced DCIS with microcalcifications only has a low DCIS upgrade rate. The CESM-enhanced features could feasibly predict IDC underestimation.

To assess the feasibility of using contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for operative planning of patients with breast cancers who were initially diagnosed by sonographic guided biopsy. With the approval of the Institutional Review Board of our hospital, we retrospectively reviewed the data on patients with breast cancers who underwent CESM and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) prior to operation and were followed up for at least 5 years postoperatively. The patients with breast cancer diagnosed by sonographic guided biopsy without mammography were included for analysis. The size and number of cancers on low-energy mammograms (LE-MG), recombined subtracted mammograms (RSM), and CE-MRI were recorded and compared with microscopic histopathologic data and at least 5 years of clinical follow-up data. Fifty-one cancerous breasts of 46 patients were included in the analysis. All the principal cancers could be detected by RSM or CE-MRI; however, only 45 were by LE-MG. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the size on microscopy were 0.44 for LE-MG, 0.77 for RSM, and 0.84 for CE-MRI (all P-values ≤.001). Regarding the microscopic reports, RSM or CE-MRI had sensitivities of 100% and a positive predictive value of 63.6% for multicentric cancers. One breast cancer with partial mastectomy recurred after 3 years of follow-up. CESM was feasible for assessing the cancer extension and multicentric cancers as secondary examination in patients with diagnosed breast cancers after sonographic biopsy.

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy (CEM-Bx), a novel technique for diagnosing suspicious enhanced lesions, was commercialized for clinical application in 2021; however, there are only a few publications documenting this technique in the existing literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the procedural performance and preliminary outcomes of CEM-Bx performed in our hospital between from September 2021 to June 2022. We reviewed data of 12 women who underwent CEM-Bx during the study period, including their demographic and procedural characteristics, biopsy success rate, histopathological diagnosis, and average glandular dose (AGD). All women (mean age ± standard deviation: 54±6 years) showed enhanced breast lesions on CEM and underwent CEM-Bx within one week. The success rate of CEM-Bx was 100%. The vertical needle approach was used in a decubitus position (N=7, 58%), while the horizontal needle approach was used in an upright sitting position (N=5, 42%). The mean procedure time for the CEM-Bx was 17±6.3 min. The mean AGD was 14.3±12.3 mGy. Histopathologic examination revealed a malignancy rate of 66.7%. In summary, CEM-Bx is a feasible technique, with a high success rate of diagnosing contract-enhanced lesions.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) uses intermittent dual-energy (low- and high-energy) exposures to produce low-energy mammograms and recombine enhanced images after the administration of iodized contrast medium, which provides more detailed information to detect breast cancers by using the features of morphology and abnormal uptake. In this article, we reviewed the literature to clarify the clinical applications of CEM, including (1) the fundamentals of CEM: the technique, radiation exposure, and image interpretation; (2) its clinical uses for cancer diagnosis, including problem-solving, palpable mass, suspicious microcalcification, architecture distortion, screening, and CEM-guided biopsy; and (3) the concerns of surgical oncology in pre-operative and neoadjuvant chemotherapy assessments. CEM undoubtedly plays an important role in clinical practice.

Survival outcome of lobar or segmental transcatheter arterial embolization with ethanol-lipiodol mixture in treating hepatocellular carcinoma