Back to the list
Congress: ECR24
Poster Number: C-14580
Type: EPOS Radiologist (educational)
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2024/C-14580
Authorblock: L. Montesinos Aguayo, S. Abiad Sosa, D. Medina Morales, B. Martos Rodriguez, C. Gómez De Las Heras, D. Calvo Gijón, B. Fernandez Gordillo, A. FERNANDEZ ARGUELLES, S. Rico Gala; Sevilla/ES
Disclosures:
Lucia Montesinos Aguayo: Nothing to disclose
Samer Abiad Sosa: Nothing to disclose
Daniela Medina Morales: Nothing to disclose
Beatriz Martos Rodriguez: Nothing to disclose
Cristina Gómez De Las Heras: Nothing to disclose
Daniel Calvo Gijón: Nothing to disclose
Borja Fernandez Gordillo: Nothing to disclose
AMAYA FERNANDEZ ARGUELLES: Nothing to disclose
Susana Rico Gala: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Breast, Mammography, Contrast agent-intravenous, Diagnostic procedure, Cancer
Findings and procedure details

Over a period of three years, our hospital performed 1,414 CEM procedures on patients from 30 to 89 years old who presented with symptoms or suspicious findings on any breast imaging study, such as heterogeneously dense parenchyma, microcalcifications, nodules, distorsion, etcetera. It is important to remember that all diagnostic tests including breast imaging have a false-negative rate. For digital mammography, this varies from 20% to 30%, and is higher for women with dense breasts. Techniques that are able to show areas of neoangiogenesis like CEM or MRI are reported to have significantly lower rates.

From the total CEM number performed, 199 (14.07%) had negative CEM results, and 37 of them had microcalcifications or other manifestations in low energy imaging and underwent a biopsy, which had histopathologically positive results for breast cancer: 20 cases of infiltrating breast cancer, 16 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ and 1 case of invasive lobular cancer. The negative predictive value was 0.81, with 37 false negatives and 162 true negatives.

GALLERY