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}
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.
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.