Search

Background: Recently, radiomics has emerged as a possible image-derived biomarker, predominantly stemming from retrospective analyses. We aimed to prospectively assess the predictive role of [18F]FDG-PET radiomics in breast cancer (BC). Methods: Patients affected by stage I–III BC eligible for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) staged with [18F]FDG-PET/CT were prospectively enrolled. The pathological response to NAC was assessed on surgical specimens. From each primary breast lesion, we extracted radiomic PET features and their predictive role with respect to pCR was assessed. Uni- and multivariate statistics were used for inference; principal component analysis (PCA) was used for dimensionality reduction. Results: We analysed 93 patients (53 HER2+ and 40 triple-negative (TNBC)). pCR was achieved in 44/93 cases (24/53 HER2+ and 20/40 TNBC). Age, molecular subtype, Ki67 percent, and stage could not predict pCR in multivariate analysis. In univariate analysis, 10 radiomic indices resulted in p < 0.1. We found that 3/22 radiomic principal components were discriminative for pCR. Using a cross-validation approach, radiomic principal components failed to discriminate pCR groups but predicted the stage (mean accuracy = 0.79 ± 0.08). Conclusions: This study shows the potential of PET radiomics for staging purposes in BC; the possible role of radiomics in predicting the pCR response to NAC in BC needs to be further investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms "breast cancer", "preoperative staging", "contrast-enhanced mammography", "contrast-enhanced spectral mammography", "contrast enhanced digital mammography", "contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging" "CEM", "CESM", "CEDM", and "CE-MRI". We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA "metaprop" command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I2-statistics). Results: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]