Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Background/Aims: Shifts in the gut microbiota and metabolites are interrelated with liver cirrhosis progression and complications. However, causal relationships have not been evaluated comprehensively. Here, we identified complication-dependent gut microbiota and metabolic signatures in patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods: Microbiome taxonomic profiling was performed on 194 stool samples (52 controls and 142 cirrhosis patients) via V3-V4 16S rRNA sequencing. Next, 51 samples (17 controls and 34 cirrhosis patients) were selected for fecal metabolite profiling via gas chromatography mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography coupled to timeof-flight mass spectrometry. Correlation analyses were performed targeting the gut-microbiota, metabolites, clinical parameters, and presence of complications (varices, ascites, peritonitis, encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatocellular carcinoma, and deceased). Results: Veillonella bacteria, Ruminococcus gnavus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae are cirrhosis-related microbiotas compared with control group. Bacteroides ovatus, Clostridium symbiosum, Emergencia timonensis, Fusobacterium varium, and Hungatella_uc were associated with complications in the cirrhosis group. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis, encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, and deceased were 0.863, 0.733, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively. The AUROCs of mixed microbial species for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and complication were 0.808 and 0.847, respectively. According to the metabolic profile, 5 increased fecal metabolites in patients with cirrhosis were biomarkers (AUROC >0.880) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and complications. Clinical markers were significantly correlated with the gut microbiota and metabolites. Conclusions Cirrhosis-dependent gut microbiota and metabolites present unique signatures that can be used as noninvasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and its complications.

Purpose: We evaluated whether there is an association between sequential changes in kinetic profiles by computer-aided detection (CAD) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and pathologic complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB) in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of patients with invasive breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study involved 51 patients (median age, 48 years; range, 33–60 years) who underwent pre-, interim-, and post-NAC DCE-MRIs at 3 T. The tumor size and CAD-generated kinetic profiles (peak enhancement and delayed enhancement [persistent, plateau, and washout] components) were measured. Percentage changes in pre- and interim-NAC (ΔMRI value1) and pre- and post-NAC (ΔMRI value2) were compared between pCR and non-pCR cases, and according to RCB. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to evaluate the association between pCR and MRI parameters (including CAD-generated kinetic profiles). Results: The pCR rate was 19.6% (10/51). There were statistically significant differences in Δtumor size2 (p < 0.01), Δpeak enhancement2 (p = 0.01), Δpersistent2 (p = 0.01), Δplateau2 (p = 0.02), and Δwashout2 (p = 0.03) between pCR and non-pCR. ΔTumor size2 provided very good diagnostic accuracy for pCR (cut-off, -90%; area under the curve, 0.88). There were differences in Δtumor size2, Δpeak enhancement2, Δplateau2, and Δwashout2 between RCB classes (p < 0.01). Conclusion DCE-MRI using CAD has the potential for predicting pCR and RCB classes.

Male breast cancer is rare, accounting for approximately 1% of breast cancers. Metastasis from extra-mammary malignancy to the breast in men is extremely rare. The most common primary tumors that metastasize to the breast in male are prostate, lung, stomach, colorectal cancer, melanoma, and sarcoma. To our knowledge, only a few cases of bladder cancer presenting with metastasis to the male breast have been reported, and metastasis with infiltration rather than mass is extremely rare. We report imaging findings on mammography and ultrasonography in a 59-year-old male with bladder cancer metastatic to the breast.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an inherited autosomal-dominant tumor-predisposition disorder caused by germline mutations in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene. Since patients with LFS are likely to develop therapy-related cancers, radiation therapy should be avoided if breast cancer is found in these individuals. Herein, we present a case of secondary breast cancer in an LFS patient after radiation and chemotherapy for the first diagnosed breast sarcoma.

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to evaluate digital breast tomosynthesis as a breast cancer screening modality for women with gynecologic cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients with underlying gynecologic malignancies who underwent screening digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer. The cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. PPV1 was defined as the percentage of all positive screening exams that have a tissue diagnosis of cancer within a year. PPV2 was defined as the percentage of all diagnostic exams (and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4, 5 from screening setting) with a recommendation for tissue diagnosis that have cancer within a year. PPV3 was defined as the percentage of all known biopsies actually performed that resulted in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within the year. For each case of screen-detected cancer, we analyzed the age, type of underlying gynecologic malignancy, breast density, imaging features, final Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment, histologic type, T and N stages, molecular subtype, and Ki-67 index. Results: Among 508 patients, 7 with breast cancer were identified after a positive result. The cancer detection rate was 13.8 per 1000 screening exams, and the recall rate was 17.9%. The sensitivity was 100%, and the specificity was 83.2%. The false negative rate was 0 per 1000 exams. The PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were 7.7, 31.8, and 31.8, respectively. Conclusion Digital breast tomosynthesis may be a promising breast cancer screening modality for women with gynecologic cancer, based on the high cancer detection rate, high sensitivity, high PPV, and high detection rate of early-stage cancer observed in our study.