Patient Notification About Breast Arterial Calcification on Mammography: Empowering Women With Information About Cardiovascular Risk.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of informing women about the presence of breast arterial calcification (BAC) on mammography by determining whether those notified about the presence of BAC would seek cardiovascular evaluation. METHODS: This IRB-approved prospective study included 494 patients who underwent screening mammography between June 8, 2021, and April 22, 2022. Mammograms were reviewed by a radiologist, and patients were notified via e-mail about the presence or absence of BAC. Patients with BAC were advised to discuss the results with their physicians and were surveyed 3 months later. Frequencies and proportions were calculated for study participation, presence of BAC, survey participation, health actions, and perceptions. Confidence intervals were calculated for proportions of health actions and perceptions. RESULTS: Of 494 study participants, 68/494 (13.8%; 95% CI: 10.9%-17.1%) had BAC detected on mammography and 42/68 (61.8%; 95% CI: 61.1%-62.1%) with BAC completed the follow-up survey at 3 months. Of these 42 survey respondents, 24/42 (57.1%; 95% CI: 41.1%-72.3%) reported discussing results with their primary care physician (PCP) or a cardiologist. In addition, 34/42 (81.0%; 95% CI: 65.9%-91.4%) reported finding it helpful to receive information about BAC and 32/42 (76.2%; 95% CI: 60.6%-88.0%) believed all women should be informed about BAC after mammography. CONCLUSION: After notification about the presence of BAC on screening mammography, the majority (57.1%) of survey respondents reported discussing the results with a PCP or cardiologist. These results suggest that providing mammography patients with information about BAC may promote preventive cardiovascular health.

The patient-friendly radiology report: history, evolution, challenges and opportunities.

The past several decades have witnessed dramatic developments and improvements in the field of radiology, including technologic innovations and new imaging modalities, picture archiving and communication systems, and the rise of artificial intelligence. At the same time, an evolution has been occurring in a fundamental component of radiology practice - the radiologist's report. Initially, the radiology report was a private written communication between the radiologist and the referring physician 1,2. Today, the report is an electronic document, displayed on web portals, and visible to both physicians and the patients themselves.3 A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law on December 13, 2016, ensures that radiology reports in the electronic health record are visible to patients without delay 4. To meet modern patient expectations and legal requirements, the structure and purpose of the radiologist report is changing. This article will provide an overview of the history of radiology reporting and the law, discuss the role of the radiologist report within the context of patient and family centered care, review current strategies and investigations in patient-friendly reporting, and summarize radiology reporting challenges and opportunities for the future.

Nipple-sparing Mastectomy: What the Radiologist Should Know.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly offered to patients undergoing treatment of breast cancer and prophylaxis treatment for reduction of breast cancer risk. NSM is considered oncologically safe for appropriately selected patients and is associated with improved cosmetic outcomes and quality of life. Accepted indications for NSM have expanded in recent years, and currently only inflammatory breast cancer or malignancy involving the nipple is considered an absolute contraindication. Neoplasms close to and involving the nipple areolar complex are common, and cancer of the lactiferous ducts can spread to the nipple. Therefore, accurate determination of nipple involvement at imaging examinations is critical to identifying appropriate candidates for NSM and preventing local recurrence. Multiple imaging features have been described as predictors of nipple involvement, with tumor to nipple distance, enhancement between the index malignancy and the nipple, and nipple retraction demonstrating the highest predictive values. These features can be assessed at multimodality breast imaging, particularly at breast MRI, which demonstrates high specificity and negative predictive value for determining nipple involvement in malignancy. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Based on Breast Density.

Mammography remains the only validated screening tool for breast cancer, however, there are limitations to mammography. One of the limitations of mammography is the variable sensitivity based on breast density. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient's risk level and breast density. For average-risk women with nondense breasts, the sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is high; additional supplemental screening is not warranted in this population. For average-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, screening ultrasound (US), breast MRI, or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women, there is emerging evidence suggesting that women in this population may benefit from breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhancedmammography or screening US. There is strong evidence supporting screening high-risk women with breast MRI regardless of breast density. Contrast-enhanced mammography, whole breast screening US, or abbreviated breast MRI may be also considered. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.