Magnetic Localization of Breast Lesions: A Large-Scale European Evaluation in a National Cancer Institute.

INTRODUCTION: For decades the standard for preoperative breast lesions' localization has been wire localization. In recent years the options for nonwired localization have significantly expanded and include radioactive seeds, radar reflectors, radiofrequency identification tags and magnetic seeds. The aim of our study is to evaluate on a large scale the performance of preoperative magnetic seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all patients undergoing image-guided magnetic seed localization from September 2019 to December 2022. We analyzed imaging findings, histological results, and type of surgery. The primary outcome was the successful localization rate. Secondary outcomes were the successful placement rate, the ease of percutaneous positioning, the procedural complications, and the reintervention rate. RESULTS: A total of 1123 magnetic seeds were placed in 1084 patients by 4 radiologists under ultrasound (1053) or stereotactic (70) guidance. All seeds were detectable transcutaneously in all breasts sizes and at all depths by 7 surgeons with a success rate of 100%. A total of 97.5% seeds were correctly placed into the target lesions (only 2.5% were dislocated). All radiologists have shown good compliance during the procedure, and there were no complications or safety issues. The reoperation rate was 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided localization with magnetic seeds is an easy, safe, reliable, and effective method for localizing nonpalpable breast lesions. Both radiologists and surgeons agreed that the technology was intuitive to use and that it can be widely applied in preoperative localization in breast units.

Is there a specific magnetic resonance phenotype characteristic of hereditary breast cancer?

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the growth rate of inherited breast cancer, to analyze its T2 signal intensity besides kinetic and morphologic aspects, and to verify whether there is any correlation between magnetic resonance imaging phenotype and BRCA status. METHODS: Between June 2000 and September 2009, we enrolled 227 women at high genetic risk for breast cancer in a surveillance program, within a multicenter project of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Rome). RESULTS: Thirty-four cancers were detected among 31 subjects. One patient refused magnetic resonance imaging because of claustrophobia. Compared with sporadic disease, hereditary cancer showed some differences, in terms of biologic attitude and semeiotic patterns. These differences were mainly registered for magnetic resonance imaging, where the most frequent radiological variant was represented by the very high T2 signal intensity (73%). Moreover, the size of 8 of the neoplasms showed a significant increase in less than one year, 5 of them in less than 6 months. Six lesions were in BRCA1 patients and the remaining in BRCA2. Furthermore, cancers with a high growth rate also demonstrated a significant increment in T2 signal intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed the high growth rate within BRCA-related breast cancers, especially for BRCA1 mutation carriers. In our experience, we found a specific imaging phenotype, represented by the high T2 signal intensity of hereditary breast cancer. To our knowledge, this is the first report that points out this new semeiotic parameter, which is usually typical of benign lesions. Considering the correlation between high growth rate and high T2 signal intensity, the former seems to be related to the absence of induction of a desmoplastic reaction that could somehow restrict cancer growth.

Role of sonoelastography in non-palpable breast lesions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of sonoelastography in differentiating benign from malignant non-palpable breast lesions. A total of 293 BI-RADS 3-5 (Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System) impalpable breast lesions in 278 women was evaluated with B-mode ultrasound (US) and subsequently with sonoelastography (SE) before performing US-guided biopsy. Among the 293 lesions (size up to 2 cm), 110 (37.5%) were histologically malignant and 183 (62.5%) benign. Lesions that were malignant or showed atypical ductal hyperplasia were referred for surgical excision, as well as 32 benign lesions showing discordance between US/SE results and histology. All other benign lesions had US follow-up at 6/12 months, showing stability. Overall performance of SE was lower than US, with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 80.9%, respectively, for SE as compared with 95.4% and 87.4% for US. Statistical analysis showed no improvement in the joint use of SE and US over the use of US alone, whose performance, however, was very high in our study. SE is a simple, fast and non-invasive diagnostic method that may be a useful aid to US for less experienced radiologists in the assessment of solid non-palpable breast lesions, especially BI-RADS 3, where specificity was higher (88.7%).

MRI in the early detection of breast cancer in women with high genetic risk.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations have an elevated risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Because of the early onset of the disease, screening of this group of women should start at an earlier age than in the general population. The association of breast magnetic resonance imaging (BMRI) and ultrasonography (US) with mammography (MX) and clinical breast examination (CBE) in the regular surveillance of these individuals has been proposed and seems to improve the early detection of breast cancer. METHODS: Within a multicenter study started by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Rome), at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan (INT) we enrolled 116 women at high genetic risk for breast cancer; they were either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers or had a strong family history of breast cancer. They underwent CBE, MX, US and BMRI once a year. RESULTS: Between June 2000 and April 2005, at INT 12 cancers were detected among the 116 screened individuals (10%). In this subgroup, 1 patient refused BMRI and in 2 cases US was not performed. With BMRI we found 11 cancers and 6 of them were detectable only by this technique. In these 6 cases, the size of the disease was less than 1 cm and MX was false negative due to irregularly nodular parenchyma in 4 cases and scar tissue or prosthesis in the other 2. US was not performed in 2 cases and was false negative in 4 cases. Three false positive results were found with BMRI: 1 case was considered suspect but related to hormonal influences; 1 case with the same pattern was sent for second-look US, which gave a negative result and BMRI review after 6 months showed normalization of the parenchyma; in the third case histology revealed the presence of adenosis. No false positive results were registered for MX. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of secondary prevention is the detection of cancer at its earliest stage. BMRI screening in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or at high familiar risk appears to be highly sensitive and may detect mammographically occult disease. The accuracy of MR imaging is higher than that of conventional imaging but the technique is flawed by a lower specificity. In order to avoid unnecessary biopsies we believe that the combination of BMRI and conventional imaging can be very useful in screening women with a high genetic risk of breast cancer, especially with second-look evaluation by means of US when BMRI yields the only positive diagnostic result. Second-look US has been demonstrated to be of critical importance both in recognizing false positive BMRI results and in guiding biopsies, when necessary.

Mammographic findings after reshaping with autoprosthesis in women undergoing contralateral breast reconstruction and mastectomy.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Breast reduction and mastopexy combined with inferior dermo-lipo-glandular flap (autoprosthesis) gives good breast shape, long-term projection, and upper pole fullness. We assess the impact on breast oncologic surveillance compared to other techniques. METHODS: A total of 105 patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction were divided into 3 groups of 35 patients each: groups 1 and 2 include patients with contralateral breast symmetrization performed with and without autoprosthesis technique, respectively. Group 3 is a control group without contralateral breast reshaping. On mammography, edema, skin thickening, architectural distortion, and calcifications were recorded, as well as further diagnostic examinations, biopsies, and surgical treatments required. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (p<0.001) in the first follow-up mammography between groups 1 and 2 were stromal edema (6% vs 51%) and architectural distortion (74% vs 63%). The latest findings meant architectural distortion also have significant difference (p<0.001) in the last mammography (79% vs 66%). Microcalcification has statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in the latest postsurgical mammography, increased in group 1. Skin thickening had a similar course in either group. Mammography follow-up was not impaired in most cases notwithstanding the parenchyma distortion as compared with mammography after breast-conserving surgery. Four core biopsies were performed in both groups: 3 new breast cancers and 1 benign epithelial hyperplasia were found. CONCLUSIONS: No difficulties were found impairing mammographic evaluation in patients treated with autoprosthesis as compared to other techniques.

Performance and role of the breast lesion excision system (BLES) in small clusters of suspicious microcalcifications.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of the BLES as a biopsy tool in patients with ≤ 1 cm clusters of BIRADS 4 microcalcifications, in order to possibly avoid surgical excision in selected patients. MATERIALS: This is a retrospective study of 105 patients undergone to stereotactic breast biopsy with the BLES. It excises a single specimen containing the whole mammographic target, allowing better histological assessment due to preserved architecture. RESULTS: Our case series consists of 41 carcinomas (39%) and 64 benign lesions (61%). Cancer involved the specimen margins in 20/41 cases (48.8%) or was close to them (≤ 1 mm) in 14 cases (34.1%); margins were disease-free in only 7 DCIS (17.1%). At subsequent excision of 39/41 malignant cases, underestimation occurred for 5/32 DCIS (15.6%), residual disease was found in 15/39 cancers (38.5%) and no cancer in 19/39 cases (48.7%). For DCIS cases, no residual disease occurred for 66.7% G1-G2 cases and for 35.3% G3 cases (P=0.1556) as well as in 83.3%, 40.0% and 43.8% cases respectively for negative, close and positive BLES margins (P=0.2576). CONCLUSIONS: The BLES is a good option for removal of small clusters of breast microcalcifications, giving better histological interpretation, lower underestimation rates and possibly reducing the need of subsequent surgical excision in selected patients.