Browsing by Author "Açar, ÇR"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Contrast-enhanced spectral mammographic findings of phyllodes tumor of the breast
    Orguc, S; Mavili, S; Açar, ÇR; Aydede, H; Kandiloglu, AR
    Background: Phyllodes tumors of breast are rare fibroepithelial neoplasms. They have similar radiological findings with fibroadenomas. While fibroadenomas are benign lesions, phyllodes tumors may have malignant potential. Therefore, any imaging findings to differentiate fibroadenoma from phyllodes tumor are valuable. Case presentation: A 51-year-old female patient was admitted to our clinic with the complaint of a palpable mass. Tru-Cut biopsy resulted as phyllodes tumor, and excision was recommended. However, the patient neglected herself during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 20 months later, she presented with a huge and complex mass. On CESM imaging, cystic areas and clefts were identified. The case was diagnosed as borderline phyllodes tumor. Conclusions: Although MRI findings of phyllodes tumor are well known and reported many times, there is no information about CESM findings of this tumor in literature. Bubbly appearance on CESM is useful finding in the diagnosis of phyllodes tumor of breast.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Açar, ÇR; Orguc, S
    Our main goal is to compare the performance CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) being malignant and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) being benign. CEM has comparable diagnostic performance with MRI. Introduction: In contemporary medical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality for detecting breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), a relatively recent technology, represents another contrast-enhanced imaging technique that has the potential to serve as an alternative to breast MRI. Our main goal is to compare the diagnostic accuracy including assessment of sensitivit y and specificit y of these 2 contrast-enhanced breast imaging methods, CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions. Material and methods: Our prospective study included patients who were clinically suspected of malignancy and/or had suspicious findings detected by mammography or ultrasound. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. All CEM examinations were conducted at our institution, while 56.89% of all MRI examinations were carried out at external centers. While histopathological results were accessible for all malignant lesions, the final diagnosis for 80.5% of benign lesions was established through typical imaging findings and adequate follow-up. Results: This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) malignant lesions and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity values were 98.40% and 81.91%, respectively, for CEM, and 100% and 75.33%, respectively, for MRI. Moreover, CEM showcased comparable performance to MRI in evaluating women with dense breasts. Conclusion: CEM and MRI were compared for breast lesion diagnosis, with MRI showing higher sensitivity and CEM higher specificity; however, the differences were not statistically significant.