Congress:
ECR25
Poster Number:
C-14271
Type:
Poster: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
Authorblock:
M. R. López De La Torre Carretero, M. B. Barrio Piqueras, C. D. Solano, D. A. Zambrano, A. M. Delgado Brito, J. M. Rodríguez Ortega, C. Mbongo, A. Elizalde, L. J. Pina Insausti; Pamplona/ES
Disclosures:
Manuel Rafael López De La Torre Carretero:
Nothing to disclose
Miguel Barrio Barrio Piqueras:
Nothing to disclose
Carlos Delgado Solano:
Nothing to disclose
Daniel Alfonso Zambrano:
Nothing to disclose
Adolfo Manuel Delgado Brito:
Nothing to disclose
José Marlon Rodríguez Ortega:
Nothing to disclose
Carmen Mbongo:
Nothing to disclose
Arlette Elizalde:
Nothing to disclose
Luis Javier Pina Insausti:
Nothing to disclose
Keywords:
Breast, Oncology, Mammography, MR, Comparative studies, Screening, Staging, Cancer, Neoplasia, Outcomes
Conclusion
Breast MRI yielded significantly higher sensitivity. The AUC of CEM exceeded that of MRI due to the higher rate of FP obtained in MRI examinations.
In the preoperative assessment of malignant breast lesions, a higher rate of FP (as seen in MRI) is more acceptable than a high rate of FN (as seen in CEM), considering the risk of failing to diagnose intermediate-risk tumors with this technique.
Regarding tumor size measurements, both CEM and MRI demonstrated comparable performance, with a tendency to overestimate lesion size.
MRI is more susceptible to background parenchymal enhancement. CEM may serve as a valuable diagnostic tool for patients with pronounced background parenchymal enhancement, likely due to high-density breasts.
Limitations: It is a retrospective study and 5/7 cases of DCIS included in the malignant lesions burden showed no microcalcifications, which may introduce selection bias.
To summarize, we assert that CEM should be considered a second line in the diagnostic and therapeutic process due to its similar accuracy but elevated FN rate. Conversely, in scenarios with limited MRI accessibility or with MRI contraindications, CEM could serve as a dependable alternative for preoperative breast cancer evaluation.
Fig 13: Example Case of a multicentric Luminal A invasive ductal carcinoma. While conventional mammography would have detected one lesion, contrast-enhanced mammography detected multicentricity, confirmed in MRI study.
© Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona/ Spain 2024
Fig 14: Example case of a unifocal Luminal B invasive ductal carcinoma. CEM shows better accuracy than conventional techniques in detecting these lesions, confirmed in MRI study.
© Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona/ Spain 2024
Fig 15: Take Home Points and References
© Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona/ Spain 2024
