Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.

Purpose: Second opinion consultation for patients with suspicious findings on breast imaging and patients with known breast cancer is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency of second opinion breast and axillary ultrasound imaging review and the subsequent impact on clinical management. Materials and Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on 400 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialized breast radiologists at a designated cancer center, including mammogram and ultrasound review. The outside institution imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize ultrasound review discrepancies which were defined as any BI-RADS category change. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and added cancer detection were measured. Results: The second opinion imaging review resulted in discrepant findings in 108/400 patients (27%). Patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts had higher discrepancy frequency (36% discrepancy, 68/187) than those with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast tissue (19% discrepancy, 40/213) with P = 0.0001. Discrepancies resulted in the following changes in impression/recommendations: 70 repeat ultrasounds for better characterization of a breast lesion, 11 repeat ultrasounds of a negative region, 20 repeat ultrasounds for benign axillary lymph nodes, 5 downgrades from probably benign to benign, and 2 upgrades from benign to suspicious. Repeat ultrasounds of the axilla in 19 patients resulted in 13 biopsy recommendations, and 4 were metastatic (PPV3 31%). In the breast, repeat ultrasounds in 81 patients resulted in 14 upgrades to suspicious. Of these, 5 yielded malignancy. In addition, one patient was upgraded from benign to suspicious based on the outside image, with pathology revealing malignancy (breast PPV3 40%). Breast lesion BI-RADS category downgrades in 27 patients resulted in 10 avoided biopsies. Ultimately, second opinion ultrasound review resulted in altered management in 12% of patients (47/400). This included discovery of additional breast malignancies in 6 patients, metastatic lymph nodes in 4 patients, excisional biopsy for atypia in 1 patient, 4 patients proceeding to mastectomy, 10 patients who avoided biopsies, and 22 patients who avoided follow-up of benign findings. Conclusions: In this study, subspecialized second opinion ultrasound review had an impact on preventing unnecessary procedures and follow-up exams in 8% of patients while detecting additional cancer in 2.5%.

Tissue marker migration after MRI-guided breast biopsy: Migration frequency and associated factors.

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and associated risk factors contributing to immediate tissue marker migration in patients undergoing MRI-guided breast biopsy and to evaluate how often tissue marker migration altered clinical management. Between July 2010 and May 2015, we retrospectively reviewed all MRI-guided breast biopsies at our institution for tissue marker migration. Migration was defined as final position of the tissue marker >10 mm from the target site based on the expected location of the MRI finding on postprocedure mammogram. Factors associated with migration were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Chi-squared test, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. A total of 278 patients underwent 298 MRI-guided biopsies. Migration occurred in 42/298 biopsies (14%). Almost entirely fat fibroglandular tissue was identified as an independent risk factor for tissue marker migration, occurring in 6/16 (38%), compared to 36/262 (14%) for the other fibroglandular tissue categories (P = .03). Biopsy target size was significantly associated with clip migration, occurring in 25/114 (22%) lesions <10 mm in size vs 17/184 (9%) for larger lesions (P = .003). Clinical management was affected by clip migration in 6/42 cases (14%) with one requiring ultrasound-guided biopsy cavity marker placement and five requiring biopsy cavity wire localization. Radiologists must be vigilant in assessing for clip migration as it is not an infrequent complication. Given migration may change clinical management and require altered procedures for localization of the biopsy cavity, the possibility of clip migration should be included in informed consent.