Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening.

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and abbreviated breast MRI (ABMRI) are emerging alternatives to standard MRI for supplemental breast cancer screening. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of CEM, ABMRI, and standard MRI. Materials and Methods This single-institution, prospective, blinded reader study included female participants referred for breast MRI from January 2018 to June 2021. CEM was performed within 14 days of standard MRI; ABMRI was produced from standard MRI images. Two readers independently interpreted each CEM and ABMRI after a washout period. Examination-level performance metrics calculated were recall rate, cancer detection, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation. Bootstrap and permutation tests were used to calculate 95% CIs and compare modalities. Results Evaluated were 492 paired CEM and ABMRI interpretations from 246 participants (median age, 51 years; IQR, 43-61 years). On 49 MRI scans with lesions recommended for biopsy, nine lesions showed malignant pathology. No differences in ABMRI and standard MRI performance were identified. Compared with standard MRI, CEM demonstrated significantly lower recall rate (14.0% vs 22.8%; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI: -14.0, -3.5), lower false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations (65.0 vs 162.6; difference, -97.6; 95% CI: -146.3, -50.8), and higher specificity (87.8% vs 80.2%; difference, 7.6%; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.1). Compared with standard MRI, CEM had significantly lower cancer detection rate (22.4 vs 36.6; difference, -14.2; 95% CI: -28.5, -2.0) and sensitivity (61.1% vs 100%; difference, -38.9%; 95% CI: -66.7, -12.5). The performance differences between CEM and ABMRI were similar to those observed between CEM and standard MRI. Conclusion ABMRI had comparable performance to standard MRI and may support more efficient MRI screening. CEM had lower recall and higher specificity compared with standard MRI or ABMRI, offset by lower cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared with standard MRI. These trade-offs warrant further consideration of patient population characteristics before widespread screening with CEM. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03517813 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

When cardiomyopathy, cancer, and COVID-19 collide: A case report.

Malignancy has historically prohibited solid organ transplant; however, patients with effectively treated, favorable-risk cancers should not necessarily be eliminated as transplant candidates. These cases require careful review by a multidisciplinary team. Here, we report the case of a woman with end-stage heart failure undergoing heart transplant evaluation during the COVID pandemic who was found to have early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Given her favorable cancer-related prognosis, a multidisciplinary committee recommended lumpectomy, accelerated partial breast irradiation, and adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for definitive treatment to allow for consideration of orthotopic heart transplant.

A phased approach to implementing the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Successful breast cancer detection programs rely on standardized reporting and interpreting systems, such as the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), to improve system performance. In low-income and middle-income countries, evolving diagnostic programs have insufficient resources to either fully implement BI-RADS or to periodically evaluate the program's performance, which is a necessary component of BI-RADS. This leads to inconsistent breast ultrasound interpretation and a failure to improve performance. METHODS: The authors applied the Breast Health Global Initiative's phased implementation strategy to implement diagnostic ultrasound and BI-RADS within the context of a limited-resource setting. RESULTS: The authors recommended starting with triage ultrasound to distinguish suspicious masses from normal breast tissue and benign masses such as cysts because the majority of health workers performing ultrasounds at this level have minimal breast imaging experience. Transitioning to full diagnostic ultrasound with condensed or full BI-RADS should occur after performance and quality metrics have been met. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning through these phases across facilities likely will occur at different times, particularly in rural versus urban settings.

Assessment of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement Parameters to Improve Determination of Individual Breast Cancer Risk.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to identify optimal quantitative breast magnetic resonance imaging background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) parameters associated with breast cancer risk and compare performance to qualitative assessments. METHODS: Using a matched case-control cohort of 46 high-risk women who underwent screening magnetic resonance imaging (23 who developed breast cancer matched to 23 who did not), fibroglandular tissue area, BPE area, and intensity metrics (mean, SD, quartiles, skewness, and kurtosis) were quantitatively measured at varying enhancement thresholds. Optimal thresholds for discriminating between cancer and control cohorts were identified for each metric and performance summarized using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Women who developed breast cancer exhibited greater BPE area (adjusted P = 0.004) and higher intensity statistics (adjusted P < 0.004, except skewness and kurtosis with P > 0.99) than did control subjects, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 at optimized thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated quantitative BPE parameters, related to both area and intensity of enhancement, are associated with breast cancer development.

Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Current clinical guidelines are consistent in supporting annual mammography for women after treatment of primary breast cancer. Surveillance imaging beyond standard digital mammography, including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), breast ultrasound, and MRI, may improve outcomes. This article reviews the evidence on the performance and effectiveness of breast imaging modalities available for surveillance after treatment of sporadic unilateral primary breast cancer and identifies additional factors to be considered when selecting an imaging surveillance regimen. CONCLUSION: Evidence review supports the use of mammography for surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. Variability exists in guideline recommendations for surveillance initiation, interval, and cessation. DBT offers the most promise as a potential modality to replace standard digital mammography as a front-line surveillance test; a single published study to date has shown a significant decrease in recall rates compared with standard digital mammography alone. Most guidelines do not support the use of whole-breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance, and further studies are needed to define the characteristics of women who may benefit from MRI surveillance. The emerging evidence about surveillance imaging outcomes suggests that additional factors, including patient and imaging characteristics, tumor biology and gene expression profile, and choice of treatment, warrant consideration in selecting personalized posttreatment imaging surveillance regimens.

Are Physicians Influenced by Their Own Specialty Society's Guidelines Regarding Mammography Screening? An Analysis of Nationally Representative Data.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether primary care physicians were influenced by their own specialty society's mammography screening recommendations after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's (USPSTF) revised recommendations were released. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an analysis of cross-sectional nationally representative data for 2007-2012 from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). All office-based preventive services visits for women 40 years old or older were included. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify changes over time in the mammography referral rate per 1000 visits by physician specialty, adjusting for patient- and office-level covariates. All analyses were weighted to account for the multistage probability sampling design of NAMCS. RESULTS: Our analysis represented an average of 35,947,290 office visits per year. Overall, between 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, mammography referral rates (per 1000 visits) decreased from 285 to 215 referrals (-25.0% adjusted change; p = 0.006). The largest decrease was among family physicians (from 230 to 128; -49.0% adjusted change; p < 0.001), followed by internal medicine physicians (from 135 to 79; -45.8% adjusted change; p = 0.038). No statistically significant change was noted among obstetricians and gynecologists over time (from 476 to 419; -14.4% adjusted change; p = 0.23). DISCUSSION: Family and internal medicine physicians, whose societies adhered to 2009 USPSTF recommendations for biennial screening starting at age 50 years, showed statistically significant decreases in mammography referral rates over time. Obstetricians and gynecologists, whose society continued to recommend annual screening starting at age 40 years, showed no statistically significant change in mammography referral rates over time. Physicians may be influenced by their own society's recommendations, which may influence their shared decision-making discussions with patients.

Are Qualitative Assessments of Background Parenchymal Enhancement, Amount of Fibroglandular Tissue on MR Images, and Mammographic Density Associated with Breast Cancer Risk?

PURPOSE: To investigate whether qualitative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging assessments of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT), and mammographic density are associated with risk of developing breast cancer in women who are at high risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, all screening breast MR images obtained from January 2006 to December 2011 in women aged 18 years or older and at high risk for but without a history of breast cancer were identified. Women in whom breast cancer was diagnosed after index MR imaging comprised the cancer cohort, and one-to-one matching (age and BRCA status) of each woman with breast cancer to a control subject was performed by using MR images obtained in women who did not develop breast cancer with follow-up time maximized. Amount of BPE, BPE pattern (peripheral vs central), amount of FGT at MR imaging, and mammographic density were assessed on index images. Imaging features were compared between cancer and control cohorts by using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-three women at high risk (mean age, 47 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; six women had BRCA mutations) with no history of breast cancer underwent screening breast MR imaging; in these women, a diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive, n = 12; in situ, n = 11) was made during the follow-up interval. Women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE were nine times more likely to receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during the follow-up interval than were those with minimal BPE (P = .007; odds ratio = 9.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 71.0). BPE pattern, MR imaging amount of FGT, and mammographic density were not significantly different between the cohorts (P = .5, P = .5, and P = .4, respectively). CONCLUSION: Greater BPE was associated with a higher probability of developing breast cancer in women at high risk for cancer and warrants further study.

Communicating Potential Radiation-Induced Cancer Risks From Medical Imaging Directly to Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, efforts have increasingly been made to decrease radiation dose from medical imaging. However, there remain varied opinions about whether, for whom, by whom, and how these potential risks should be discussed with patients. We aimed to provide a review of the literature regarding awareness and communication of potential radiation-induced cancer risks from medical imaging procedures in hopes of providing guidance for communicating these potential risks with patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review on the topics of radiation dose and radiation-induced cancer risk awareness, informed consent regarding radiation dose, and communication of radiation-induced cancer risks with patients undergoing medical imaging. We included original research articles from North America and Europe published between 1995 and 2014. RESULTS: From more than 1200 identified references, a total of 22 original research articles met our inclusion criteria. Overall, we found that there is insufficient knowledge regarding radiation-induced cancer risks and the magnitude of radiation dose associated with CT examinations among patients and physicians. Moreover, there is minimal sharing of information before nonacute imaging studies between patients and physicians about potential long-term radiation risks. CONCLUSION: Despite growing concerns regarding medical radiation exposure, there is still limited awareness of radiation-induced cancer risks among patients and physicians. There is also no consensus regarding who should provide patients with relevant information, as well as in what specific situations and exactly what information should be communicated. Radiologists should prioritize development of consensus statements and novel educational initiatives with regard to radiation-induced cancer risk awareness and communication.

Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

OBJECTIVE: The goals of this article are to provide an overview of controversial aspects of imaging-based screening and to elucidate potential risks that may offset anticipated benefits. CONCLUSION: Current controversial topics associated with imaging-based screening include false-positive results, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, radiation risks, and costs. Alongside the benefits of screening, radiologists should be prepared to discuss these additional diagnostic consequences with providers and patients to better guide shared decision making regarding imaging-based screening.

Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines.

Addressing the challenges of survivorship necessitates a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, identifying distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. This article will discuss the current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, advocating a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach. In this manner, early-stage breast cancer survivors are empowered to navigate their journey with enhanced knowledge, facilitating a transition to life beyond cancer.

How radiologists get paid: resource-based relative value scale and the revenue cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To learn the impact of health care reform, it is important for radiologists to first understand basic administrative aspects of medicine. This article describes the processes of radiology billing, reimbursement, and the revenue cycle, which includes the importance of proper coding, the resource-based relative value scale, and accounts receivable. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the basics of medical practice management can help radiologists effectively provide optimal patient care. This article provides an overview of one component of this topic--the current radiology reimbursement system.

Business of radiology: financial fundamentals for radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this article are to provide a primer on financial statements and to review several financial concepts that are at the foundation of the business of medicine. CONCLUSION: For radiologists to effectively contribute to the leadership and management of their practices, it is imperative that they understand the business aspects of radiology. Radiologists' understanding and participation in practice management may also facilitate job satisfaction and assist the provision of optimal patient care.

Preoperative Breast MRI: Current Evidence and Patient Selection.

Breast MRI is the most sensitive imaging modality for the assessment of newly diagnosed breast cancer extent and can detect additional mammographically and clinically occult breast cancers in the ipsilateral and contralateral breasts. Nonetheless, appropriate use of breast MRI in the setting of newly diagnosed breast cancer remains debated. Though highly sensitive, MRI is less specific and may result in false positives and overestimation of disease when MRI findings are not biopsied prior to surgical excision. Furthermore, improved anatomic depiction of breast cancer on MRI has not consistently translated to improved clinical outcomes, such as lower rates of re-excision or breast cancer recurrence, though there is a paucity of well-designed studies examining these issues. In addition, current treatment paradigms have been developed in the absence of this more accurate depiction of disease span, which likely has limited the value of MRI. These issues have led to inconsistent and variable utilization of preoperative MRI across practice settings and providers. In this review, we discuss the history of breast MRI and its current use and recommendations with a focus on the preoperative setting. We review the evidence surrounding the use of preoperative MRI in the evaluation of breast malignancies and discuss the data on breast MRI in the setting of specific patient factors often used to determine breast MRI eligibility, such as age, index tumor phenotype, and breast density. Finally, we review the impact of breast MRI on surgical outcomes (re-excision and mastectomy rates) and long-term breast recurrence and survival outcomes.

It's a Two-Way Street: Giving and Receiving Feedback to the Unaware.

Giving and receiving constructive feedback is a valuable skill and an evolving process due to improved understanding and changes in culture. This article provides a practical review of key elements of effective feedback skills and strategies for providing constructive feedback, with a focus on how to address recipients who may have impaired insight into the issue at hand. Commonly known tips and tricks include direct, immediate, and specific feedback delivered in a safe setting and in a conversational manner. This article specifically considers how the feedback will be heard or accepted by the intended recipient, in order for the educator to best overcome hurdles in relaying constructive criticism.

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations.

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality for breast cancer detection and guidelines recommend its use, in addition to screening mammography, for high-risk women. The most recent American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) manual coordinated cross-modality BI-RADS terminology and established an outcome monitoring section that helps guide a medical imaging outcomes audit. This article provides a framework for performing a breast MR imaging audit in clinical practice, incorporating ACR BI-RADS guidance and more recently published data, clarifies common pitfalls, and discusses audit challenges related to evolving clinical practice.

The Radiologist's Role in a Breast Multidisciplinary Tumor Board.

Breast multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) play an important role in determining treatment. This article serves as a guide for the radiologist participating in a breast MTB, as the information presented at MTB can significantly influence treatment plans and dictate future steps for further patient work-up. Multidisciplinary tumor board preparation involves a careful review of the patient's history while gathering all relevant imaging studies, and reinterpreting them when appropriate. Presented images should be carefully selected, annotated, and displayed clearly before providing final recommendations for localization and incompletely assessed findings. Anatomic staging factors from the AJCC Breast Cancer Staging System, such as tumor size and degree of suspected skin involvement, should be described. In addition, there are many other types of information that the treatment specialists want to know. The surgeon is interested in anatomic information that will help them decide whether breast conservation therapy is feasible or if local structures, such as the nipple, can be spared. The radiation oncologist may need to know whether accelerated partial breast irradiation is feasible or if postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated. The medical oncologist is looking for factors that may provide an indication for neoadjuvant therapy and ensuring there is a reliable follow-up method for evaluating the response to treatment, such as comparative MRI. Additionally, all specialists need to know the extent of suspected nodal involvement. By clearly and comprehensively presenting this information to the rest of the MTB team, the radiologist provides a vital contribution that guides treatment and ensures adherence to clinical guidelines.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Use of preoperative breast MRI (pMRI) to evaluate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) extent is controversial due to limited data on its impact on surgical management. We sought to evaluate the effect of pMRI on surgical management of women with core needle biopsy (CNB)-diagnosed pure DCIS at a multidisciplinary academic institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included all women with CNB-diagnosed DCIS (1/2004-12/2013) without prior ipsilateral breast cancer and who underwent surgery within 180 days of diagnosis. Patient features, number of CNBs and surgeries, and single successful breast conserving surgery (BCS) rate were compared between pMRI and no-pMRI cohorts. Number of surgeries and single BCS success rates were also compared to published US (SEER) and Danish National Registry data. RESULTS: Among the 373 women included, no clinical differences were identified between the pMRI (n = 332) and no-pMRI (n = 41) cohorts (p > 0.05). The pMRI group experienced a higher additional CNB rate (30% vs. 7%, p = 0.002) but fewer total surgeries (mean = 1.2 vs. 1.5, p < 0.001) than the no-pMRI group. Among the 245 women for whom BCS was attempted, the pMRI cohort underwent fewer mean surgeries (1.3 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001) with a greater single successful BCS rate (77% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared to published data, women with pMRI who underwent BCS experienced fewer surgeries (difference (Δ) = -0.22 vs. -0.17, p < 0.001) with a higher single successful BCS rate (Δ = +20% vs. +14%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: pMRI may improve surgical management of DCIS at multidisciplinary centers with breast cancer specialists.

Practical Presentation Pearls: Evidence-based Recommendations From the Psychology and Physiology Literature.

Oral presentations remain a common teaching method in academic radiology. The goal of these presentations is to transfer knowledge from the presenter's brain to brains in the audience in a way that sticks. A number of studies from the recent psychological and physiological literature offer some rather practical and evidence-based advice on ways to optimize our oral presentations. The purpose of this paper is to summarize this work, and to give examples of how it can be harnessed to increase the efficacy of radiology presentations, whether they are for resident education, a continuing medical education course, or for a scientific presentation at a national radiology meeting.

A Review of Innovative Teaching Methods.

Teaching is one of the important roles of an academic radiologist. Therefore, it is important that radiologists are taught how to effectively educate and, in turn, to act as role models of these skills to trainees. This is reinforced by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education which has the requirement that all residents who interact with and teach medical students must undergo training in effective methods of teaching. Radiologists are likely familiar with the traditional didactic lecture-type teaching format. However, there are many newer innovative teaching methods that could be added to the radiologist's teaching repertoire, which could be used to enhance the traditional lecture format. The Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Task Force on Noninterpretive Skills therefore presents a review of several innovative teaching methods, which include the use of audience response technology, long-distance teaching, the flipped classroom, and active learning.