造影剂增强乳腺 X 光片上的非对称背景实质增强:相关因素、诊断工作和临床结果。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-10856-8
Noam Nissan, Jill Gluskin, Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson
{"title":"造影剂增强乳腺 X 光片上的非对称背景实质增强:相关因素、诊断工作和临床结果。","authors":"Noam Nissan, Jill Gluskin, Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-10856-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize our institutional experience with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) exams reporting asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement (BPE).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Consecutive CEMs performed between December 2012 and July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed to identify exams reporting asymmetric BPE. Associated factors, the level of reporting certainty, BI-RADS score, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome were summarized. BPE grades and BI-RADS were compared between initial CEM vs. immediate MRI and 6-month follow-up CEM, when indicated, using the Sign test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 175/12,856 (1.4%) CEMs (140 female patients, mean age, 46 ± 8.0 years) reported asymmetric BPE. Reporting certainty was mostly high (n = 86), then moderate (n = 59) and low (n = 30). Associated factors included contralateral irradiation (n = 94), recent ipsilateral breast treatment (n = 14), and unilateral breastfeeding (n = 4). BI-RADS scores were 0 (n = 21), 1/2 (n = 75), 3 (n = 67), 4 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 1), or given for a finding other than asymmetric BPE (n = 8). Initial diagnostic-workup often included targeted-US (n = 107). Immediate MRI (n = 65) and/or 6-month CEM follow-up (n = 69) downgraded most cases, with a significant decrease in BPE grade compared to the initial CEM (p < 0.01 for both). On follow-up, two underlying cancers were diagnosed in the area of questionable asymmetric BPE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Apparent asymmetric BPE is most often a benign finding with an identifiable etiology. However, rarely, it may mask an underlying malignancy presenting as non-mass enhancement, thus requiring additional scrutiny.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>The variability in the diagnostic-workup of apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement stresses the clinical challenge of this radiological finding. Further studies are required to verify these initial observations and to establish standardized management guidelines.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement usually represents a benign clinical correlate, though rarely it may represent malignancy. Evaluation of asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement varied considerably in the metrics that were examined. Targeted US and MRI can be useful in evaluating unexplained asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"712-722"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associated factors, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome.\",\"authors\":\"Noam Nissan, Jill Gluskin, Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-10856-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize our institutional experience with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) exams reporting asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement (BPE).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Consecutive CEMs performed between December 2012 and July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed to identify exams reporting asymmetric BPE. Associated factors, the level of reporting certainty, BI-RADS score, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome were summarized. BPE grades and BI-RADS were compared between initial CEM vs. immediate MRI and 6-month follow-up CEM, when indicated, using the Sign test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 175/12,856 (1.4%) CEMs (140 female patients, mean age, 46 ± 8.0 years) reported asymmetric BPE. Reporting certainty was mostly high (n = 86), then moderate (n = 59) and low (n = 30). Associated factors included contralateral irradiation (n = 94), recent ipsilateral breast treatment (n = 14), and unilateral breastfeeding (n = 4). BI-RADS scores were 0 (n = 21), 1/2 (n = 75), 3 (n = 67), 4 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 1), or given for a finding other than asymmetric BPE (n = 8). Initial diagnostic-workup often included targeted-US (n = 107). Immediate MRI (n = 65) and/or 6-month CEM follow-up (n = 69) downgraded most cases, with a significant decrease in BPE grade compared to the initial CEM (p < 0.01 for both). On follow-up, two underlying cancers were diagnosed in the area of questionable asymmetric BPE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Apparent asymmetric BPE is most often a benign finding with an identifiable etiology. However, rarely, it may mask an underlying malignancy presenting as non-mass enhancement, thus requiring additional scrutiny.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance statement: </strong>The variability in the diagnostic-workup of apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement stresses the clinical challenge of this radiological finding. Further studies are required to verify these initial observations and to establish standardized management guidelines.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement usually represents a benign clinical correlate, though rarely it may represent malignancy. Evaluation of asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement varied considerably in the metrics that were examined. Targeted US and MRI can be useful in evaluating unexplained asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"712-722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10856-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10856-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要总结我院造影剂增强乳腺摄影(CEM)检查报告非对称背景实质增强(BPE)的经验:对 2012 年 12 月至 2023 年 7 月期间进行的连续 CEM 进行回顾性审查,以确定报告非对称 BPE 的检查。总结了相关因素、报告确定性水平、BI-RADS 评分、诊断工作和临床结果。使用Sign检验比较了初始CEM与即刻MRI和6个月随访CEM之间的BPE等级和BI-RADS:总体而言,175/12,856(1.4%)名 CEM(140 名女性患者,平均年龄为 46 ± 8.0 岁)报告了不对称 BPE。报告的确定性大多为高(86 例),然后是中(59 例)和低(30 例)。相关因素包括对侧照射(n = 94)、近期同侧乳房治疗(n = 14)和单侧哺乳(n = 4)。BI-RADS 评分分别为 0 分(21 人)、1/2 分(75 人)、3 分(67 人)、4 分(3 人)和 6 分(1 人),或因发现非对称 BPE 而评分(8 人)。最初的诊断工作通常包括靶向 US(107 例)。立即进行核磁共振成像(n = 65)和/或 6 个月的 CEM 随访(n = 69)可降低大多数病例的等级,与最初的 CEM 相比,BPE 等级显著下降(p 结论:BPE 是一种常见的非对称性病变:明显的不对称 BPE 通常是一种良性病变,病因可以确定。然而,在极少数情况下,它可能会掩盖潜在的恶性肿瘤,表现为非肿块增强,因此需要进行额外检查:临床相关性声明:明显的非对称背景实质增强在诊断工作中的变异性强调了这一放射发现的临床挑战性。需要进一步研究来验证这些初步观察结果,并制定标准化的管理指南:要点:明显的非对称背景实质强化通常代表良性临床相关性,但在极少数情况下可能代表恶性肿瘤。对非对称背景实质增强的评估在所研究的指标中差异很大。靶向 US 和 MRI 可用于评估原因不明的非对称性背景实质强化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associated factors, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome.

Asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associated factors, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome.

Objectives: To summarize our institutional experience with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) exams reporting asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement (BPE).

Materials and methods: Consecutive CEMs performed between December 2012 and July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed to identify exams reporting asymmetric BPE. Associated factors, the level of reporting certainty, BI-RADS score, diagnostic workup, and clinical outcome were summarized. BPE grades and BI-RADS were compared between initial CEM vs. immediate MRI and 6-month follow-up CEM, when indicated, using the Sign test.

Results: Overall, 175/12,856 (1.4%) CEMs (140 female patients, mean age, 46 ± 8.0 years) reported asymmetric BPE. Reporting certainty was mostly high (n = 86), then moderate (n = 59) and low (n = 30). Associated factors included contralateral irradiation (n = 94), recent ipsilateral breast treatment (n = 14), and unilateral breastfeeding (n = 4). BI-RADS scores were 0 (n = 21), 1/2 (n = 75), 3 (n = 67), 4 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 1), or given for a finding other than asymmetric BPE (n = 8). Initial diagnostic-workup often included targeted-US (n = 107). Immediate MRI (n = 65) and/or 6-month CEM follow-up (n = 69) downgraded most cases, with a significant decrease in BPE grade compared to the initial CEM (p < 0.01 for both). On follow-up, two underlying cancers were diagnosed in the area of questionable asymmetric BPE.

Conclusion: Apparent asymmetric BPE is most often a benign finding with an identifiable etiology. However, rarely, it may mask an underlying malignancy presenting as non-mass enhancement, thus requiring additional scrutiny.

Clinical relevance statement: The variability in the diagnostic-workup of apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement stresses the clinical challenge of this radiological finding. Further studies are required to verify these initial observations and to establish standardized management guidelines.

Key points: Apparent asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement usually represents a benign clinical correlate, though rarely it may represent malignancy. Evaluation of asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement varied considerably in the metrics that were examined. Targeted US and MRI can be useful in evaluating unexplained asymmetric background parenchymal enhancement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信