Incidence, Timing, and Long-Term Outcomes of COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Lymphadenopathy on Screening Mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, timing, and long-term outcomes of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy ipsilateral to vaccine site (UIAL) on screening mammography after COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: This retrospective, multisite study included consecutive patients undergoing screening mammography February 8, 2021, to January 31, 2022, with at least 1 year of follow-up. UIAL was typically considered benign (BI-RADS 1 or 2) in the setting of recent (≤6 weeks) vaccination or BI-RADS 0 (ultrasound recommended) when accompanied by a breast finding or identified >6 weeks postvaccination. Vaccination status and manufacturer were obtained from regional registries. Lymphadenopathy rates in vaccinated patients with and without UIAL were compared using Pearson's χ2 test. RESULTS: There were 44,473 female patients (mean age 60.4 ± 11.4 years) who underwent screening mammography at five sites, and 40,029 (90.0%) received at least one vaccine dose. Ninety-four (0.2%) presented with UIAL, 1 to 191 days postvaccination (median 13.5 [interquartile range: 5.0-31.0]). Incidence declined from 2.1% to 0.9% to ≤0.5% after 1, 2, and 3 weeks and persisted up to 36 weeks (P < .001). UIAL did not vary across manufacturer (P = .15). Of 94, 77 (81.9%) were BI-RADS 1 or 2 at screening. None were diagnosed with malignancy at 1-year follow-up. Seventeen (18.1%) were BI-RADS 0 at screening. At diagnostic workup, 13 (76.5%) were BI-RADS 1 or 2, 2 (11.8%) were BI-RADS 3, and 2 (11.8%) were BI-RADS 4. Both BI-RADS 4 patients had malignant status and ipsilateral breast malignancies. Of BI-RADS 3 patients, at follow-up, one was biopsied yielding benign etiology, and one was downgraded to BI-RADS 2. DISCUSSION: Isolated UIAL on screening mammography performed within 6 months of COVID-19 vaccination can be safely assessed as benign.

Unilateral Lymphadenopathy After COVID-19 Vaccination: A Practical Management Plan for Radiologists Across Specialties.

Reports are rising of patients with unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy, visible on diverse imaging examinations, after recent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. With less than 10% of the US population fully vaccinated, we can prepare now for informed care of patients imaged after recent vaccination. The authors recommend documenting vaccination information (date[s] of vaccination[s], injection site [left or right, arm or thigh], type of vaccine) on intake forms and having this information available to the radiologist at the time of examination interpretation. These recommendations are based on three key factors: the timing and location of the vaccine injection, clinical context, and imaging findings. The authors report isolated unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy (i.e., no imaging findings outside of visible lymphadenopathy), which is ipsilateral to recent (prior 6 weeks) vaccination, as benign with no further imaging indicated. Clinical management is recommended, with ultrasound if clinical concern persists 6 weeks after the final vaccination dose. In the clinical setting to stage a recent cancer diagnosis or assess response to therapy, the authors encourage prompt recommended imaging and vaccination (possibly in the thigh or contralateral arm according to the location of the known cancer). Management in this clinical context of a current cancer diagnosis is tailored to the specific case, ideally with consultation between the oncology treatment team and the radiologist. The aim of these recommendations is to (1) reduce patient anxiety, provider burden, and costs of unnecessary evaluation of enlarged nodes in the setting of recent vaccination and (2) avoid further delays in vaccinations and recommended imaging for best patient care during the pandemic.

Mitigating the Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccinations on Patients Undergoing Breast Imaging Examinations: A Pragmatic Approach.

Reports of patients with axillary adenopathy identified on breast imaging after coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination are rising. We propose a pragmatic management approach based on clinical presentation, vaccination delivery, and imaging findings. In the settings of screening mammography, screening MRI, and diagnostic imaging workup of breast symptoms, with no imaging findings beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to recent (within the past 6 weeks) vaccination, we report the adenopathy as benign with no further imaging indicated if no nodes are palpable 6 weeks after the last dose. For patients with palpable axillary adenopathy in the setting of ipsilateral recent vaccination, clinical follow-up of the axilla is recommended. In all these scenarios, axillary ultrasound is recommended if clinical concern persists 6 weeks after vaccination. In patients with a recent breast cancer diagnosis in the pre- or peritreatment setting, prompt recommended imaging is encouraged as well as vaccination (in the thigh or contralateral arm). Our recommendations align with the ACR BI-RADS Atlas and aim to reduce patient anxiety, provider burden, and costs of unnecessary evaluation of enlarged nodes in the setting of recent vaccinations and, also, to avoid further delays in vaccinations and breast cancer screening during the pandemic.

Retrospective Review of Preoperative Radiofrequency Tag Localization of Breast Lesions in 848 Patients.

BACKGROUND. Advantages of radiofrequency tags for preoperative breast lesion localization include decoupling of tag placement from surgical schedules and improved patient comfort. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a preoperative localization radiofrequency tag system for breast lesions requiring surgical excision. METHODS. The cohort for this retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent image-guided needle localization with radiofrequency tags before surgical excision from July 12, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Images and medical records were reviewed to evaluate the pathologic diagnoses serving as indications for tag placement, imaging guidance for tag placement, number of tags placed, and target lesion type. Tag placement technical accuracy rate (defined as deployment of the tag within 1 cm of the edge of the target), success (defined as technical accuracy without complication), and surgical margin and reexcision status were evaluated. RESULTS. A total of 1013 tags were placed under imaging guidance in 848 patients (mean age, 60 years; range, 23-96 years) and 847 subsequently underwent surgical excision. Tags were most commonly placed for invasive carcinoma (537/1013, 53.0%), ductal carcinoma in situ (138/1013, 13.6%), and high-risk lesions (289/1013, 28.5%). A total of 673 (66.4%) tags were deployed under mammographic guidance, whereas 340 (33.6%) were placed under sonographic guidance. Two or more tags were placed in 149 of 848 patients (17.6%). Targeted lesion types primarily included masses (448/1013, 44.2%), biopsy clip markers (331/1013, 32.7%), and calcifications (155/1013, 15.3%). Technical accuracy of placement was achieved in 1004 (99.1%) tags. Of the nine inaccurate tag placements, seven (77.8%) required an additional tag or wire placement. Seven (0.7%) biopsy clip markers were displaced within the breast or removed by the tag device during placement. No complications were reported intraoperatively. Therefore, success was achieved in 997 (98.4%) tags. Tags were successfully retrieved in all 847 patients who underwent surgery. Of the 568 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of carcinoma, 86 (15.1%) had positive or close surgical margins requiring surgical reexcision. CONCLUSION. Preoperative image-guided localization with radiofrequency tags is a safe and feasible technique for breast lesions requiring surgery. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiofrequency tag localization is an acceptable alternative to needle or wire localization, offering the potential for improved patient workflow and experience.

Comparison of Upright Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided versus Prone Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy.

Purpose To compare the performance of upright digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) with that of prone stereotactic (PS) VABB. Materials and Methods This retrospective review involved consecutive patients who underwent PS VABB from August 2014 to December 2015 and upright DBT-guided VABB from February 2016 to June 2017. Tissue sampling methods were the same for PS and DBT-guided biopsies. Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare the groups. Results During the study period, 439 PS VABBs in 408 patients (mean age, 56.5 years; age range, 32-84 years) and 706 DBT-guided VABBs in 682 patients (mean age, 57.9 years; age range, 23-90 years) were recommended. Technical success was achieved for more lesions with DBT-guided VABB versus PS VABB (99.3% [695 of 700] vs 95.1% [410 of 431], respectively; P < .001). Mean procedure time was shorter with DBT-guided VABB versus PS VABB (12 vs 27 minutes, respectively; P < .001), and fewer exposures were acquired with DBT-guided VABB versus PS VABB (three vs 12, respectively; P < .001). A higher percentage of lesions for which DBT-guided VABB was performed were noncalcified lesions (eg, architectural distortion, asymmetry, and mass) than for PS VABB (29.2% [203 of 695] vs 3.4% [14 of 410], respectively; P < .001). There were no differences in the distribution of histologic results (P = .42). No major complications were observed in either group. Conclusion Upright digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy has a higher rate of technical success than does prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy and can be performed in less than half the time and with one-fourth of the exposures. In addition, more architectural distortions and asymmetries are amenable to biopsy with digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. © RSNA, 2018.

Evaluation of a Nonradioactive Magnetic Marker Wireless Localization Program.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a nonradioactive magnetic marker wireless localization technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients who underwent image-guided needle localization with nonradioactive magnetic markers and subsequent surgical excision from March to August 2017. Indications for marker placement, lesion type, imaging guidance used for marker placement, postprocedure mammographic imaging and reports, surgical reports, and surgical margin status were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 22-89 years) underwent image-guided localization with 213 magnetic markers and subsequent surgical excision. The indications for marker placement included invasive carcinoma (96 markers [45.1%]), ductal carcinoma in situ (41 markers [19.2%]), and high-risk lesions (71 markers [33.3%]). Localization markers were most commonly placed for masses (96 markers [45.1%]) and were deployed under mammographic guidance (160 markers [75.1%]) or sonographic guidance (53 markers [24.9%]). Technical success, which was defined as placement of the magnetic marker within 1 cm of the target, was achieved for 206 of 213 markers (96.7%). All 213 markers were successfully retrieved at surgery. Of 137 cases of in situ or invasive carcinoma, 30 (21.9%) had tumor-positive or close surgical margins that required reexcision. No major or minor complications were observed during marker placement, intraoperatively, or postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Image-guided needle localization with magnetic markers is a safe, feasible, and effective method for localizing breast lesions. Magnetic marker localization has the potential to replace conventional wire needle localization and radioactive seed needle localization for lesions that require surgical excision.

Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare a human second reader with computer-aided detection (CAD) for the reduction of false-negative cases by a primary radiologist. We retrospectively reviewed our clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We found that 6,381 consecutive screening mammograms were interpreted by a primary reader. This radiologist then reinterpreted the studies using CAD ("CAD reader"). A second human reader who was blinded to the CAD results but knowledgeable of the primary reader's findings reviewed the studies, looking for abnormalities not seen by the first reader. RESULTS: Two cancers were called back by the second human reader that were not called back by the CAD reader; however, the CAD system had marked the findings, but they were dismissed by the primary reader. Because of the small numbers, the difference between the CAD and second human reader was not statistically significant. The CAD and human second readers increased the recall rates 6.4% and 7.2% (p = 0.70), respectively, and the biopsy rates 10% and 14.7%. The positive predictive value was 0% (0/3) for the CAD reader and was 40% (2/5) for the human second reader. The relative increases in the cancer detection rate compared with the primary reader's detection rate were 0% for the CAD reader and 15.4% (2/13) for the human second reader (p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: A human second reader or the use of a CAD system can increase the cancer detection rate, but we found no statistical difference between the two because of the small sample size. A possible benefit from a human second reader is that CAD systems can only point to possible abnormalities, whereas a human must determine the significance of the finding. Having two humans review a study may increase detection rates due to interpreter--hence, perceptual--variability and not just increased detection.

The mammary hamartoma: appreciation of additional imaging characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the mammographic and sonographic findings of hamartomas that were not classic on imaging, how pathologists distinguish the hamartoma from benign breast tissue on core samples, and reasons for discrepancies between core and surgical biopsy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all image-recommended core biopsies between 1993 and 2001 was performed. There were 41 cases of hamartomas found on either core or surgical biopsy. The mammographic, sonographic, and pathologic findings were reviewed. RESULTS: Of 41 hamartomas in 38 patients, 18 went on to surgical biopsy. Of these 18 cases, 4 cases of hamartoma on core biopsy were fibroadenoma after excision; 2 cases of hamartoma on core biopsy were confirmed by surgery; and 12 cases of fibrocystic change after core biopsy were hamartoma after surgical biopsy. The 4 cases of fibroadenoma shown at final pathologic examination were excluded from imaging review, leaving 37 cases. In the 20 patients who underwent only core sampling, 23 hamartomas were diagnosed. Seventeen masses were visible on mammography, and 82% were homogeneously dense. Of 36 masses shown on sonography, 86% were uniformly hypoechoic. At histologic examination, only 16% contained fat within the mass. CONCLUSIONS: Hamartomas may appear as homogeneously dense, well-circumscribed masses, varying in appearance from the classically described encapsulated mixed fatty-fibroglandular mass. Pathologists can make the diagnosis of hamartoma without the presence of adipose tissue but may have difficulty in distinguishing the hamartoma from fibrocystic change. However, if there is radiologic-pathologic concordance, further surgical excision is not warranted.