MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Follow-up of B3 breast lesions without residual microcalcifications post vacuum-assisted biopsy, can contrast-enhanced digital mammography help?

Bicchierai G, Nori J, De Benedetto D, Boeri C, Vanzi E, Bianchi S, et al.

Breast J, 2020 02;26(2):299-302.
PMID: 31486197 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13598
Role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the post biopsy management of B3 lesions: Preliminary results

Bicchierai G, Nori J, De Benedetto D, Boeri C, Vanzi E, Bianchi S, et al.

Tumori, 2019 Oct;105(5):378-387.
PMID: 30558495 DOI: 10.1177/0300891618816212

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the post biopsy management of breast lesions classified as lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) by core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB).
METHODS: The local ethics committee approved this retrospective study and for this type of study formal consent is not required. A total of 42 B3 lesions in 40 women aged 41-77 years were included in our study. All patients underwent CESM 2-3 weeks after the biopsy procedure and surgical excision was subsequently performed within 60 days of the CESM procedure. Three radiologists reviewed the images independently. The results were then compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for confirmed demonstration of malignancy at CESM were 33.3%, 87.2%, 16.7%, and 94.4% for reader 1; 66.7%, 76.9%, 18.2%, and 96.7% for reader 2; 66.7%, 74.4%, 16.7%, and 96.7% for reader 3. Overall agreement on detection of malignant lesions using CESM among readers ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = .451-.696), for categorization of BPE from moderate to substantial (κ = .562-.711), and for evaluation of lesion intensity enhancement from fair to moderate (κ = .346-.459).
CONCLUSION: In cases of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 1, BI-RADS 2, or BI-RADS 3 results at CESM, follow-up or VAB rather than surgical biopsy might be performed.
Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large-scale single-center experience

Bicchierai G, Tonelli P, Piacenti A, De Benedetto D, Boeri C, Vanzi E, et al.

Breast J, 2020 Jul;26(7):1276-1283.
PMID: 31999029 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13766

One of the most important indications for contrast-enhanced breast imaging is the presurgical breast cancer (BC) staging. This is a large-scale single-center experience which evaluates the role of CEDM in presurgical staging and its impact on surgical planning. The aims of this retrospective study were to define the diagnostic performance of CEDM in the presurgical setting and to identify which types of patients could benefit from having CEDM. We selected 326 patients with BC who underwent CEDM as preoperative staging and had breast cancer-related surgery at our institution. We analyzed those cases in which CEDM led to additional imaging or biopsy and those in which it changed the type of surgery that was planned according to conventional breast imaging (CI) techniques (digital mammography, tomosynthesis and bilateral handheld ultrasound). CEDM sensitivity in identifying the index lesion and sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, and accuracy in the correct preoperative staging of BC of the whole population and in various subgroups were calculated. CEDM sensitivity for the index lesion was 98.8% (322/326), which led to additional breast imaging in 23.6% (77/326) of patients and additional biopsies in 17.5% (57/326). CEDM changed the type of surgery in 18.4% (60/326). In the preoperative breast cancer staging, CEDM sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy produced results of 93%, 98%, 90%, 98%, and 97%, respectively. CEDM performance was better in patients with palpable lesions. CEDM has an excellent diagnostic performance in the presurgical staging of BC. Symptomatic patients with palpable lesions benefitted most from preoperative CEDM, with a statistically significant difference compared with nonpalpable.
Fulltext Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?

Nori J, Gill MK, Vignoli C, Bicchierai G, De Benedetto D, Di Naro F, et al.

Insights Imaging, 2020 Feb 07;11(1):16.
PMID: 32034578 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-019-0811-x

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a diagnostic tool for breast cancer detection. Artefacts are observed in about 10% of CEDM examinations. Understanding CEDM artefacts is important to prevent diagnostic misinterpretation. In this article, we have described the artefacts that we have commonly encountered in clinical practice; we hope to ease the recognition and help troubleshoot solutions to prevent or minimise them.
Fulltext The Evolving Role of Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Laser Ablation in Elderly Unresectable Breast Cancer Patients: A Feasibility Pilot Study

Nori J, Gill MK, Meattini I, Delli Paoli C, Abdulcadir D, Vanzi E, et al.

Biomed Res Int, 2018;2018:9141746.
PMID: 29992167 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9141746

Background and Objectives: Breast-conserving surgery represents the standard of care for the treatment of small breast cancers. However, there is a population of patients who cannot undergo the standard surgical procedures due to several reasons such as age, performance status, or comorbidity. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous US-guided laser ablation for unresectable unifocal breast cancer (BC).
Methods: Between December 2012 and March 2017, 12 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous US-guided laser ablation as radical treatment of primary inoperable unifocal BC.
Results: At median follow-up of 28.5 months (range 6-51), no residual disease or progression occurred; the overall success rate for complete tumor ablation was therefore 100%. No significant operative side effects were observed, with only 2 (13.3%) experiencing slight to mild pain during the procedure, and all patients complained of a mild dull aching pain in the first week after procedure.
Conclusions: Laser ablation promises to be a safe and feasible approach in those patients who are not eligible to the standard surgical approach. However, longer follow-up results and larger studies are strongly needed.