Breast Suspicious Microcalcifications on Contrast-Enhanced Mammograms: Practice and Reflection

Xue Zhao Department of Radiology, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: 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 [email protected]: 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

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2025-01-01
Primary Topic
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Breast Suspicious Microcalcifications on Contrast-Enhanced Mammograms: Practice and Reflection

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
article

Breast Suspicious Microcalcifications on Contrast-Enhanced Mammograms: Practice and Reflection

article en

Abstract

Xue Zhao Department of Radiology, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: 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 [email protected]: 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

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.