Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Corinne Balleyguier.
Primary breast amyloidosis is rare, usually manifestating as suspicious masses in mammography, with or without associated microcalcifications. The final diagnosis is based on fine needle aspiration cytology or biopsy yielding clumps of amorphous material surrounded by lymphocytes and giant cells that characterize this entity. In our case the only mammographic finding was that of clustered, suspicious microcalcifications without any associated mass.
The Breast Imaging Report and Data System (BIRADS) of the American College of Radiology (ACR) is today largely used in most of the countries where breast cancer screening is implemented. It is a tool defined to reduce variability between radiologists when creating the reports in mammography, ultrasonography or MRI. Some changes in the last version of the BIRADStrade mark have been included to reduce the inaccuracy of some categories, especially for category 4. The BIRADStrade mark includes a lexicon and descriptive diagrams of the anomalies, recommendations for the mammographic report as well as councils and examples of mammographic cases. This review describes the mammographic items of the BIRADS classification with its more recent developments, while detailing the advantages and limits of this classification.
Some radiological cases are presented in this article to train the reader to the BIRADS classification in mammography. Each case is described according to the fourth American version of the BIRADS lexicon. Some classifications difficulties will also be presented, in order to show the complexity and the observer variability, commonly encountered in BIRADS 3 and 4 categories.
Endometriosis corresponds to ectopic endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. Clinical symptoms include dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, infertility, painful defecation or cyclic urinary symptoms. Pelvic ultrasound is the primary imaging modality to identify and differentiate locations to the ovary (endometriomas) and the bladder wall. Characteristic sonographic features of endometriomas are diffuse low-level internal echos, multilocularity and hyperchoic foci in the wall. Differential diagnoses include corpus luteum, teratoma, cystadenoma, fibroma, tubo-ovarian abscess and carcinoma. Repeated ultrasound is highly recommended for unilocular cysts with low-level internal echoes to differentiate functional corpus luteum from endometriomas. Posterior locations of endometriosis include utero-sacral ligaments, torus uterinus, vagina and recto-sigmoid. Sonographic and MRI features are discussed for each location. Although ultrasound is able to diagnose most locations, its limited sensitivity for posterior lesions does not allow management decision in all patients. MRI has shown high accuracies for both anterior and posterior endometriosis and enables complete lesion mapping before surgery. Posterior locations demonstrate abnormal T2-hypointense, nodules with occasional T1-hyperintense spots and are easier to identify when peristaltic inhibitors and intravenous contrast media are used. Anterior locations benefit from the possibility of MRI urography sequences within the same examination. Rare locations and possible transformation into malignancy are discussed.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer. RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A(z)) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A(z) values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.
Benign breast diseases have always been neglected in comparison to cancer, despite the fact that there are many more patients with such diseases than patients presenting to a breast clinic for cancer. Like normal breast tissues, benign breast diseases are under a complex system of controls by both systemic hormonal and local factors. In this review, we attempt to present an overview of the latest knowledge concerning the epidemiology, classification, clinical presentation, management, and physiopathology of these disorders.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system on the ability of a junior and senior radiologist to detect breast cancers on mammograms, and to determine the potential of CAD as a teaching tool in mammography. METHODS: Hundred biopsy-proven cancers and 100 normal mammograms were randomly analyzed by a CAD system. The sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the CAD system were calculated. In the second phase, to simulate daily practice, 110 mammograms (97 normal or with benign lesions, and 13 cancers) were examined independently by a junior and a senior radiologist, with and without CAD. Interpretations were standardized according to BI-RADS classification. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for each session. RESULTS: For the senior radiologist, Se slightly improved from 76.9 to 84.6% after CAD analysis (NS) (one case of clustered microcalcifications case overlooked by the senior radiologist was detected by CAD). Sp, PPV and PNV did not change significantly. For the junior radiologist, Se improved from 61.9 to 84.6% (significant change). Three cancers overlooked by the junior radiologist were detected by CAD. Sp was unchanged. CONCLUSION: CAD mammography proved more useful for the junior than for the senior radiologist, improving sensitivity. The CAD system may represent a useful educational tool for mammography.
The purpose of our study was to explore and evaluate an innovative imaging approach, which consists on imaging the breast parenchyma by means of photoluminescence detectors (LED) and analysis of dynamic data. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was chosen as the reference imaging method, as this is considered to be nowadays the gold standard for breast vascularisation evaluation. Preliminary results reveal a good correlation between breast MRI findings and light images.
In six women out of 792 who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for management of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), ureteral involvement was suspected. Ureteral endometriosis was identified as a hypointense nodule on T2- weighted images and hyperintense foci on T1-weighted images. Magnetic resonance urography detected obstruction and hydronephrosis in half the women. Detection with MRI of periureteral involvement (extrinsic endometriosis) in four women rather than ureteral wall lesions (intrinsic endometriosis) in two women is an original finding from this series. Magnetic resonance imaging features were correlated and matched with intraoperative and pathologic findings. Magnetic resonance imaging is a useful preoperative tool for the diagnosis and assessment of ureteral endometriosis in rare cases when such lesions have been suspected.