Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Phyllodes tumors of the breast are rare biphasic fibroepithelial neoplasms that may coexist with breast carcinomas. Herein, we report a case of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) within a borderline phyllodes tumor accompanied by extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the same breast. A 72-year-old woman presented with a palpable lump in the right breast.Mammography showed an oval mass associated with segmental microcalcifications, and breast ultrasound (US) revealed a 2.3 cm oval mass and an associated non-mass lesion. Based on US-guided core needle biopsy, the initial biopsy result of the non-mass lesion suggested DCIS; however, the mass was diagnosed as a fibroepithelial lesion. Preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed a rim-enhancing oval mass with areas of T2 hyperintensity, accompanied by segmental non-mass enhancement. The mass was highly suspicious for malignancy and was considered imaging-pathology discordant.Subsequently, the patient underwent mastectomy. Histopathological examination of the surgical specimens confirmed a borderline phyllodes tumor with an IDC within the tumor and an extensive intraductal component. The invasive carcinoma component was triplenegative breast cancer. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges of identifying coexisting carcinomas within phyllodes tumors and emphasizes the necessity for increased awareness among radiologists regarding this possibility.

Phyllodes tumors of the breast are rare biphasic fibroepithelial neoplasms that may coexist with breast carcinomas. Herein, we report a case of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) within a borderline phyllodes tumor accompanied by extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the same breast. A 72-year-old woman presented with a palpable lump in the right breast.Mammography showed an oval mass associated with segmental microcalcifications, and breast ultrasound (US) revealed a 2.3 cm oval mass and an associated non-mass lesion. Based on US-guided core needle biopsy, the initial biopsy result of the non-mass lesion suggested DCIS; however, the mass was diagnosed as a fibroepithelial lesion. Preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed a rim-enhancing oval mass with areas of T2 hyperintensity, accompanied by segmental non-mass enhancement. The mass was highly suspicious for malignancy and was considered imaging-pathology discordant.Subsequently, the patient underwent mastectomy. Histopathological examination of the surgical specimens confirmed a borderline phyllodes tumor with an IDC within the tumor and an extensive intraductal component. The invasive carcinoma component was triplenegative breast cancer. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges of identifying coexisting carcinomas within phyllodes tumors and emphasizes the necessity for increased awareness among radiologists regarding this possibility.

Phyllodes tumors of the breast are rare biphasic fibroepithelial neoplasms that may coexist with breast carcinomas. Herein, we report a case of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) within a borderline phyllodes tumor accompanied by extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the same breast. A 72-year-old woman presented with a palpable lump in the right breast.Mammography showed an oval mass associated with segmental microcalcifications, and breast ultrasound (US) revealed a 2.3 cm oval mass and an associated non-mass lesion. Based on US-guided core needle biopsy, the initial biopsy result of the non-mass lesion suggested DCIS; however, the mass was diagnosed as a fibroepithelial lesion. Preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed a rim-enhancing oval mass with areas of T2 hyperintensity, accompanied by segmental non-mass enhancement. The mass was highly suspicious for malignancy and was considered imaging-pathology discordant.Subsequently, the patient underwent mastectomy. Histopathological examination of the surgical specimens confirmed a borderline phyllodes tumor with an IDC within the tumor and an extensive intraductal component. The invasive carcinoma component was triplenegative breast cancer. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges of identifying coexisting carcinomas within phyllodes tumors and emphasizes the necessity for increased awareness among radiologists regarding this possibility.

Background: Inflammatory biomarkers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), serve as valuable prognostic indicators in various cancers. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study assessed the treatment outcomes of lenvatinib in 71 patients with radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory thyroid cancer, considering the baseline inflammatory biomarkers. Methods: This study retrospectively included patients from five tertiary hospitals in Korea whose complete blood counts were available before lenvatinib treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated based on the median value of inflammatory biomarkers. Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed among patients grouped according to the inflammatory biomarkers, except for older patients with a higher-than-median NLR (≥2) compared to their counterparts with a lower NLR (P= 0.01). Patients with a higher-than-median NLR had significantly shorter PFS (P=0.02) and OS (P=0.017) than those with a lower NLR. In multivariate analysis, a higher-than-median NLR was significantly associated with poor OS (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 7.29; P=0.015). However, neither the LMR nor the PLR was associated with PFS. A higher-than-median LMR (≥3.9) was significantly associated with prolonged OS compared to a lower LMR (P=0.036). In contrast, a higher-than-median PLR (≥142.1) was associated with shorter OS compared to a lower PLR (P=0.039). Conclusion Baseline inflammatory biomarkers can serve as predictive indicators of PFS and OS in patients with RAI-refractory thyroid cancer treated with lenvatinib.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.