论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
对比增强乳腺x线检查中的乳腺可疑微钙化:实践与思考
Authors Zhao X
Received 16 October 2024
Accepted for publication 9 January 2025
Published 17 January 2025 Volume 2025:18 Pages 273—280
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S494188
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Vinay Kumar
Xue Zhao
Department of Radiology, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Xue Zhao, Department of Radiology, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 17612189294, Email zhaoxue@alumni.sjtu.edu.cn
Purpose: To evaluate the use of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) in suspicious microcalcifications and to discuss strategies to cope with its diagnostic limitations.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications who underwent CEM at our institution. We collected and analyzed morphological findings, enhancement patterns and pathological findings of suspicious microcalcifications on CEM. A small proportion of these cases underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). The enhancement patterns of CEM in this study were classified into three categories: enhancement, no enhancement, and indeterminate. CEM imaging was independently analyzed by two breast imaging specialists.
Results: A total of 44 patients with 46 lesions were collected from January 2022 to July 2024. Overall, 20 cases (43.5%) microcalcifications showed enhancement on CEM; 23 (50.0%) showed no enhancement; and 3 (6.5%) were indeterminate. Of the 20 enhancement cases, mass enhancement was seen in 9 (45%), and non-mass enhancement (NME) in 11 (55%). DCE-MRI was performed in 13 cases. One case of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) showed enhancement on MRI but was indeterminate on CEM due to the masking effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and one case of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lacked enhancement on CEM but had significant enhancement on MRI.
Conclusion: CEM provides additional information on the enhancement associated with breast suspicious microcalcifications. It is not perfect for diagnosis and strategies are needed to cope with its limitations.
Keywords: microcalcifications, contrast-enhanced, mammography, diagnostic imaging, breast