Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. KEY POINTS: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript.

Personalized Risk-Benefit Ratio Adaptation of Breast Cancer Care at the Epicenter of COVID-19 Outbreak.

Northern Italy has been one of the European regions reporting the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The pandemic spread has challenged the National Health System, requiring reallocation of most of the available health care resources to treat COVID-19-positive patients, generating a competition with other health care needs, including cancer. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of developing critical illness after COVID-19 infection. Thus, mitigation strategies should be adopted to reduce the likelihood of infection in all patients with cancer. At the same time, suboptimal care and treatments may result in worse cancer-related outcome. In this article, we attempt to estimate the individual risk-benefit balance to define personalized strategies for optimal breast cancer management, avoiding as much as possible a general untailored approach. We discuss and report the strategies our Breast Unit adopted from the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak to ensure the continuum of the best possible cancer care for our patients while mitigating the risk of infection, despite limited health care resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Managing patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak is challenging. The present work highlights the need to estimate the individual patient risk of infection, which depends on both epidemiological considerations and individual clinical characteristics. The management of patients with breast cancer should be adapted and personalized according to the balance between COVID-19-related risk and the expected benefit of treatments. This work also provides useful suggestions on the modality of patient triage, the conduct of clinical trials, the management of an oncologic team, and the approach to patients' and health workers' psychological distress.

Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) provides recommendations for breast care provision and procedural prioritization during COVID-19 pandemic, being aware that medical decisions must be currently taken balancing patient's individual and community safety: (1) patients having a scheduled or to-be-scheduled appointment for in-depth diagnostic breast imaging or needle biopsy should confirm the appointment or obtain a new one; (2) patients who have suspicious symptoms of breast cancer (in particular: new onset palpable nodule; skin or nipple retraction; orange peel skin; unilateral secretion from the nipple) should request non-deferrable tests at radiology services; (3) asymptomatic women performing annual mammographic follow-up after breast cancer treatment should preferably schedule the appointment within 1 year and 3 months from the previous check, compatibly with the local organizational conditions; (4) asymptomatic women who have not responded to the invitation for screening mammography after the onset of the pandemic or have been informed of the suspension of the screening activity should schedule the check preferably within 3 months from the date of the not performed check, compatibly with local organizational conditions. The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM recommends precautions to protect both patients and healthcare workers (radiologists, radiographers, nurses, and reception staff) from infection or disease spread on the occasion of breast imaging procedures, particularly mammography, breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and breast intervention procedures.

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Mammography and MRI for screening women who underwent chest radiation therapy (lymphoma survivors): recommendations for surveillance from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

Women who underwent chest radiation therapy (CRT) during pediatric/young-adult age (typically, lymphoma survivors) have an increased breast cancer risk, in particular for high doses. The cumulative incidence from 40 to 45 years of age is 13-20 %, similar to that of BRCA mutation carriers for whom contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended. However, in women who underwent CRT, MRI sensitivity is lower (63-80 %) and that of mammography higher (67-70 %) than those observed in women with hereditary predisposition, due to a higher incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ with microcalcifications and low neoangiogenesis. A sensitivity close to 95 % can be obtained only using mammography as an adjunct to MRI. Considering the available evidence, women who underwent CRT before 30 receiving a cumulative dose ≥10 Gy should be invited after 25 (or, at least, 8 years after CRT) to attend the following program: 1. interview about individual risk profile and potential of breast imaging; 2. annual MRI using the same protocol recommended for women with hereditary predisposition; 3. annual bilateral two-view full-field digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with synthetic 2D reconstructions. Mammography and MRI can be performed at once or alternately every 6 months. In the case of MRI or contrast material contraindications, ultrasound will be performed instead of MRI. Reporting using BI-RADS is recommended. At the age for entering population screening, the individual risk profile will be discussed with the woman about opting for only mammography/DBT screening or for continuing the intensive protocol.

Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information.

UNLABELLED: This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. KEY POINTS: • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.

Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI and gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI with mammography and ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for breast cancer detection across different malignant lesion types and across different densities of breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 153 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3­5 findings on mammography and/or ultrasound underwent identical breast MRI exams at 1.5T with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were evaluated by three independent blinded radiologists. Mammography, ultrasound, and combined mammography and/or ultrasound findings were available for 108, 109, and 131 women. Imaging findings were matched with histology data by a fourth, independent, blinded radiologist. Malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance were compared. RESULTS: In all, 120, 120, and 140 confirmed malignant lesions were present in patients undergoing MRI+mammography, MRI+ultrasound, and MRI+mammography and/or ultrasound, respectively. Significantly greater cancer detection rates were noted by all three readers for comparisons of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with mammography (Δ15.8­17.5%; P < 0.0001), ultrasound (Δ18.3­20.0%; P < 0.0001), and mammography and/or ultrasound (Δ8.6­10.7%; P ≤ 0.0105) but not for comparisons of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with conventional techniques (P > 0.05). The false-positive detection rates were lower on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging (4.0­5.5% vs. 11.1% at mammography; 6.3­8.4% vs. 15.5% at ultrasound). Significantly improved cancer detection on MRI was noted in heterogeneously dense breast (91.2­97.3% on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.2­84.9% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 71.9-84.9% with conventional techniques) and for invasive cancers (93.2­96.2% for invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 79.7­88.5% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.0­84.4% with conventional techniques). Overall diagnostic performance for the detection of cancer was superior on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging or gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI significantly improves cancer detection compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound in a selected group of patients undergoing breast MRI for preoperative staging or because of inconclusive findings at conventional imaging.

Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility, performance, and cost of a breast cancer screening program aimed at 40-49-year-old women and tailored to their risk profile with supplemental ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study, and informed written consent was obtained. A total of 3017 40-49-year-old women were invited to participate. The screening program was tailored to lifetime risk (Gail test) and mammographic density (according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems [BI-RADS] criteria) with supplemental US or MR imaging and bilateral two-view microdose mammography. The indicators suggested by European guidelines, US incremental cancer detection rate (CDR), and estimated costs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1666 women (67.5% participation rate) were recruited. The average lifetime risk of breast cancer was 11.6%, and nine women had a high risk of breast cancer; 917 women (55.0%) had a high density score (BI-RADS density category 3 or 4). The average glandular dose for screening examinations was 1.49 mGy. Screening US was performed in 835 study participants (50.1%), mostly due to high breast density (800 of 1666 women [48.0%]). Screening MR imaging was performed in nine women (0.5%) at high risk for breast cancer. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 14 women (8.4 cases per 1000 women). Twelve diagnoses were made with microdose mammography, and two were made with supplemental US in dense breasts (2.4 cases per 1000 women). All patients were submitted for surgery, and 10 underwent breast-conserving surgery. The sentinel lymph node was evaluated in 11 patients, resulting in negative findings in six. Pathologic analysis resulted in the diagnosis of four ductal carcinomas in situ and 10 invasive carcinomas (five at stage I). CONCLUSION: A tailored breast cancer screening program in 40-49-year-old women yielded a greater-than-expected number of cancers, most of which were low-stage disease.

Ex vivo MRI evaluation of breast tumors: a novel tool for verifying resection of nonpalpable only MRI detected lesions.

A fundamental question in surgery of only magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected breast lesions is to ensure their removal when they are not palpable by clinical examination and surgical exploration. This is especially relevant in the case of small tumors, carcinoma in situ or lobular carcinoma. Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study, 21 patients with breast lesions detected by both conventional imaging and breast MRI (bMRI) and 18 patients with bMRI findings only. Preoperative bMRI allowed staging the disease and localizing the lesion. In the operating theater, contrast medium was injected 1 minute before skin incision. After removal, surgical specimens were submitted to ex vivo MRI, performed using a dedicated surface coil and Spair inversion recovery sequences for suppression of fat signal intensity. All MRI enhancing lesions were completely included within the surgical specimen and visualized by ex vivo MRI. In the first 21 patients, bMRI was able to visualize branching margins or satellite nodules around the core lesion, and allowed for better staging of the surrounding in situ carcinoma; in the last 18 patients, eight of whom were breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein (BRCA) mutation carriers, bMRI identified 12 malignant tumors, otherwise undetectable, that were all visualized by ex vivo MRI. This is the first description of a procedure that re-enhances breast lesions within a surgical specimen, demonstrating the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions diagnosed only with bMRI. This new strategy reproduces the morphology and the entire extension of the primary lesion on the specimen, with potentially better local surgical control, reducing additional unplanned surgery.

MR-guided stereotactic breast biopsy using a mixed ferromagnetic-nonmagnetic coaxial system with 12- to 18-gauge needles: clinical experience and long-term outcome.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the clinical application of a magnetic-resonance (MR)-guided breast biopsy (MRBB) system consisting of a nonmagnetic coaxial needle and a ferromagnetic core biopsy needle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRBB was performed on 70 breast lesions. The biopsy device consisted of a nonmagnetic 14- to 16-gauge coaxial needle and a ferromagnetic 16- to 18-gauge biopsy needle. RESULTS: Of the 70 lesions, 29 were malignant and 41 nonmalignant. All 29 malignant lesions underwent surgery and were confirmed as malignant at final histology. Of the 41 nonmalignant lesions, 35 underwent follow-up breast MR imaging (mean, 26 ± 19 months), which demonstrated no lesions changes; six lesions underwent surgery because of poor radiological-pathological correlation; of these 6 lesions, 3 were nonmalignant, one was borderline (lobular carcinoma in situ) and two were malignant (well-differentiated tubular carcinoma and infiltrating ductal carcinoma). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy were, respectively, 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 95.1% and 97.1% if the lobular carcinoma in situ was considered a nonmalignant histological result, and 90.6%, 100%, 100%, 92.7% and 95.7% if the lobular carcinoma in situ was considered malignant. CONCLUSIONS: MRBB with a ferromagnetic-nonmagnetic coaxial system represented an easy way to perform a biopsy procedure and was easily applicable in the routine clinical setting.

European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) guidelines on the management of axillary lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: 2023 revision.

Axillary lymphadenopathy is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, leading to increased imaging-detected asymptomatic and symptomatic unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. This has threatened to negatively impact the workflow of breast imaging services, leading to the release of ten recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in August 2021. Considering the rapidly changing scenario and data scarcity, these initial recommendations kept a highly conservative approach. As of 2023, according to newly acquired evidence, EUSOBI proposes the following updates, in order to reduce unnecessary examinations and avoid delaying necessary examinations. First, recommendation n. 3 has been revised to state that breast examinations should not be delayed or rescheduled because of COVID-19 vaccination, as evidence from the first pandemic waves highlights how delayed or missed screening tests have a negative effect on breast cancer morbidity and mortality, and that there is a near-zero risk of subsequent malignant findings in asymptomatic patients who have unilateral lymphadenopathy and no suspicious breast findings. Second, recommendation n. 7 has been revised to simplify follow-up strategies: in patients without breast cancer history and no imaging findings suspicious for cancer, symptomatic and asymptomatic imaging-detected unilateral lymphadenopathy on the same side of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 12 weeks) should be classified as a benign finding (BI-RADS 2) and no further work-up should be pursued. All other recommendations issued by EUSOBI in 2021 remain valid.

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).

PURPOSE: To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. RESULTS: Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2010 Clinical trial registration no. NCT00486473 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100968/-/DC1.

PET/MRI for Staging the Axilla in Breast Cancer: Current Evidence and the Rationale for SNB vs. PET/MRI Trials.

Axillary surgery in breast cancer (BC) is no longer a therapeutic procedure but has become a purely staging procedure. The progressive improvement in imaging techniques has paved the way to the hypothesis that prognostic information on nodal status deriving from surgery could be obtained with an accurate diagnostic exam. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) is a relatively new imaging tool and its role in breast cancer patients is still under investigation. We reviewed the available literature on PET/MRI in BC patients. This overview showed that PET/MRI yields a high diagnostic performance for the primary tumor and distant lesions of liver, brain and bone. In particular, the results of PET/MRI in staging the axilla are promising. This provided the rationale for two prospective comparative trials between axillary surgery and PET/MRI that could lead to a further de-escalation of surgical treatment of BC. • SNB vs. PET/MRI 1 trial compares PET/MRI and axillary surgery in staging the axilla of BC patients undergoing primary systemic therapy (PST). • SNB vs. PET/MRI 2 trial compares PET/MRI and sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in staging the axilla of early BC patients who are candidates for upfront surgery. Finally, these ongoing studies will help clarify the role of PET/MRI in BC and establish whether it represents a useful diagnostic tool that could guide, or ideally replace, axillary surgery in the future.

Axillary lymphadenopathy at the time of COVID-19 vaccination: ten recommendations from the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a frequent mild side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) proposes ten recommendations to standardise its management and reduce unnecessary additional imaging and invasive procedures: (1) in patients with previous history of breast cancer, vaccination should be performed in the contralateral arm or in the thigh; (2) collect vaccination data for all patients referred to breast imaging services, including patients undergoing breast cancer staging and follow-up imaging examinations; (3) perform breast imaging examinations preferentially before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after the last vaccine dose; (4) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, apply standard imaging protocols regardless of vaccination status; (5) in any case of symptomatic or imaging-detected axillary lymphadenopathy before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after, examine with appropriate imaging the contralateral axilla and both breasts to exclude malignancy; (6) in case of axillary lymphadenopathy contralateral to the vaccination side, perform standard work-up; (7) in patients without breast cancer history and no suspicious breast imaging findings, lymphadenopathy only ipsilateral to the vaccination side within 12 weeks after vaccination can be considered benign or probably-benign, depending on clinical context; (8) in patients without breast cancer history, post-vaccination lymphadenopathy coupled with suspicious breast finding requires standard work-up, including biopsy when appropriate; (9) in patients with breast cancer history, interpret and manage post-vaccination lymphadenopathy considering the timeframe from vaccination and overall nodal metastatic risk; (10) complex or unclear cases should be managed by the multidisciplinary team.

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as "high-risk" or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Systematic study of the effect of ultrasound gel on the performances of time-domain diffuse optics and diffuse correlation spectroscopy.

Recently, multimodal imaging has gained an increasing interest in medical applications thanks to the inherent combination of strengths of the different techniques. For example, diffuse optics is used to probe both the composition and the microstructure of highly diffusive media down to a depth of few centimeters, but its spatial resolution is intrinsically low. On the other hand, ultrasound imaging exhibits the higher spatial resolution of morphological imaging, but without providing solid constitutional information. Thus, the combination of diffuse optical imaging and ultrasound may improve the effectiveness of medical examinations, e.g. for screening or diagnosis of tumors. However, the presence of an ultrasound coupling gel between probe and tissue can impair diffuse optical measurements like diffuse optical spectroscopy and diffuse correlation spectroscopy, since it may provide a direct path for photons between source and detector. A systematic study on the effect of different ultrasound coupling fluids was performed on tissue-mimicking phantoms, confirming that a water-clear gel can produce detrimental effects on optical measurements when recovering absorption/reduced scattering coefficients from time-domain spectroscopy acquisitions as well as particle Brownian diffusion coefficient from diffuse correlation spectroscopy ones. On the other hand, we show the suitability for optical measurements of other types of diffusive fluids, also compatible with ultrasound imaging.

Sentinel node biopsy after primary systemic therapy in node positive breast cancer patients: Time trend, imaging staging power and nodal downstaging according to molecular subtype.

BACKGROUND: The management of axilla after Primary Systemic Therapy (PST) for breast cancer is a highly debated field. Despite the proven axillary downstaging occurring after PST, there is still some degree of reluctance in applying sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in the neoadjuvant setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 181 PST patients with axillary positive nodes at presentation treated between 2005 and 2017 at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. The aim was to observe the application time trend of SNB, to determine the imaging staging power and the axillary downstaging according to molecular subtypes. RESULTS: Median follow-up after surgery was 32.5(IQR: 12-59) months. After PST, 119 (65.7%) patients had no clinically palpable nodes, 72 (39.7%) converted to N0 on final imaging and 34 (18.8%) underwent SNB with an increasing application trend. Axillary-US showed the highest accuracy (69.3%) in re-staging axilla after PST. Staging power of preoperative testing varied with tumour biology: Positive Predictive Value was higher in Luminal A (80% for clinical examination and 100% for axillary-US) and Luminal B (72% and 70.5%) tumours, whilst Negative Predictive Value was higher in HER2 positive (100% and 93.3%), and triple negative (71.4% and 93.3%) tumours. Ninety five (52.5%) patients experienced axillary downstaging after PST, by molecular subtype 15% (3/20) in Luminal A, 46.4% (45/97) in Luminal B, 90.9% (20/22) in HER2+ and 70.3% (26/37) in triple negative breast tumours. CONCLUSION: SNB application after PST for breast cancer in node positive patients at presentation is increasing. Pre-operative axillary imaging and tumour biology help identify patients who might be candidates for SNB as a single staging procedure.