Diagnostic performance of CT attenuation values of focal 18F-FDG avid breast lesions detected on whole-body PET-CT in postoperative breast cancer patients.

To assess whether CT attenuation values help in differentiating benign from malignant etiology of focal (18) F-FDG avid breast lesions detected on whole-body PET/CT exam in postoperative breast cancer patients. Institutional review board approval and waived informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Between January 2009 and July 2011, a total of 85 patients had 97 focal (18) F-FDG avid breast lesions on whole-body PET/CT. Of these, 54 (56%) lesions were biopsy-proven primary invasive breast carcinoma that had not undergone treatment at the time of PET/CT, 35 (36%) were benign lesions, and 8 were locally recurrent breast carcinoma. Mean attenuation values were retrospectively measured in Hounsfield units (HU) for the correlative lesion on the CT portion of the exam. Receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC) were calculated to determine the optimal cutoff values of HU that would best discriminate between benign and malignant lesions. Interobserver agreement for measured mean attenuation values was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Mean HU for the benign lesions group and the local recurrence lesions group was -11.0 ± 30.3 versus 32.9 ± 6.87 (p < 0.0002). ROC curve analysis comparing benign breast lesions to local recurrence lesions found an optimal cutoff value of 17 HU (area under curve = 0.982, p < 0.0001, Sensitivity = 100%, Specificity = 89%). ICC with regard to interobserver agreement in measuring the mean HU of the benign lesions was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.93) and for the malignant lesions was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.94). A CT attenuation threshold value of less than 17 HU suggests benign etiology of focal (18) FDG avid breast lesions in postoperative breast cancer patients. If confirmed by additional studies, these findings may provide additional information to guide the treating physician regarding decisions for supplementary imaging or the need to biopsy.

Appropriate Use of Medical Interpreters in the Breast Imaging Clinic.

More than 25 million Americans have limited English-language proficiency (LEP) according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This population experiences challenges accessing health care and is least likely to receive preventive health care, including screening mammogram. In a setting where the breast radiologist does not speak the language of their patient, using certified medical interpreter services is fundamental. Medical interpreter use is associated with improved clinical care and patient satisfaction and can potentially increase adherence to screening mammograms and follow-up in patients with LEP. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires interpreter services for patients with LEP who are receiving federal financial assistance. Failure to provide interpretative services when necessary is considered discriminatory and illegal. The use of untrained medical interpreters, including ad hoc interpreters (eg, family, friends, or untrained staff), is associated with more medical errors, violation of confidentiality, and poor health outcomes. Types of medical interpretation services available to address language barriers include in-person interpretation, telephone and video remote interpretation, and qualified bilingual staff. Proper training and certification of medical interpreters is essential to prevent misinterpretations and ensure patient safety. When using an interpreter service, speak to and maintain eye contact with the patient, address the patient directly and seat the interpreter next to or slightly behind the patient, use visual aids whenever possible, and have the patient repeat the information to verify comprehension. Breast radiologists can address disparities in breast cancer screening and treatment by promoting effective communication.

Paget's disease of the nipple.

Paget's disease of the breast is a disorder of the nipple-areola complex that, while rare, is often associated with an underlying carcinoma. It is characterized by eczematoid changes of the nipple. Two theories have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis of Paget's disease. The Epidermotropic, which is the most accepted theory, suggests that Paget's cells originate from ductal cancer cells that had migrated from the underlying breast parenchyma. It is supported by the predominance of breast cancer markers found in Paget's disease. This article provides an overview of Paget's disease of the breast with special attention to immunohistochemistry and raises the question of new therapeutic approaches.

Culturally Competent Care in the Breast Imaging Clinic: Hispanic/Latino Patients.

Hispanic/Latino people represent 19% of the U.S. population, and this proportion is expected to increase to 26% by 2050. Hispanic/Latino people comprise a diverse ethnic group that includes individuals from all races, religions, languages, cultural identities, and nationalities. Barriers to health care that have created significant disparities in this community include language, low socioeconomic status, and inability to afford health insurance. Health coverage for Hispanic/Latino people has been a longstanding problem in the U.S., stopping many of these patients from seeking preventive care such as screening mammography. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Hispanic/Latino women in the U.S. and the leading cause of cancer death in this group. Five-year breast cancer survival in Hispanic/Latino women is slightly lower than that in non-Hispanic White women. Some of the factors that account for the ethnic disparities in breast cancer include lower levels of adherence to screening mammography of Hispanic/Latino women as a consequence of inadequate insurance coverage, language barriers, lack of transportation, being unable to leave work, and lack of childcare. By promoting a culturally sensitive clinical environment, breast radiologists can increase patient engagement, utilization of preventive services, treatment adherence rates, and overall health status.

Axillary lymph node "bubbly" calcifications and body tattoo: A case series and proposed algorithm to minimize lymph node biopsies.

The presence of mammographically evident hyperdense foci within axillary lymph nodes elicits concern for calcium deposits, which in turn have a wide differential diagnosis including both benign and malignant entities. Tissue sampling, most commonly by way of image-guided core needle biopsy, is needed in many cases when a definite etiology cannot be clinically established. In this case series we present history, imaging findings, and pathology results (or long term follow-up stability as biopsy surrogate) of several women with body tattoos who at mammography were noted to have a characteristic pattern of "bubbly" pseudo-calcifications within axillary lymph nodes, and absence of other mammographic, sonographic and clinical abnormalities.

The Challenge of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Detected Architectural Distortion of the Breast: Inter-reader Variability and Imaging Characteristics That May Improve Positive Predictive Value.

OBJECTIVE: To compare readers' performances when detecting architectural distortion (AD) on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). To determine the risk of malignancy of DBT with synthetic mammogram (SM)-detected AD and evaluate imaging features that are associated with malignancy risk. METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective review included all cases of DBT-detected AD that were recommended for biopsy from October 2013 to July 2019. Cases were reviewed by three breast radiologists and the overall agreement between radiologists was calculated. Medical records were reviewed for pathological outcomes and imaging findings. Statistical analyses used were Cohen's kappa and its 95% confidence interval, and one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 172 lesions were included. The overall agreement for the presence of AD in our study was fair (0.253). The majority (20/36, 55.5%) of the malignant ADs were associated with asymmetries (13/36, 36.1%), calcifications (4/36, 11.1%), or both (3/36, 8.3%), compared to nonmalignant ADs (40/136, 31.0%; P = 0.038). The positive predictive value (PPV) of DBT with SM-detected AD for malignancy was 21.8% (36/165), 18.8% (18/96) for DBT-detected AD, and 26.0% (18/69) for SM-detected AD, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.258). A breast MRI correlate was identified for all malignant AD lesions (17/17, 100.0%; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The detection of AD remains a challenging task for radiologists, with moderate-to-fair interobserver agreement. With a PPV for malignancy of 21.8%, percutaneous biopsy and subsequent pathology-imaging correlation are necessary for AD to exclude the possibility of malignancy.

Breast Arterial Calcifications on Mammography: A Survey of Practicing Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: To explore current practice patterns of reporting and issuing recommendations based on the presence of breast arterial calcifications on mammography and existing knowledge of their prevalence and associated factors. METHODS: An online anonymous 19-question survey was distributed to 2583 practicing radiologists who were members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Questions covered demographics, breast imaging training, practice type, and knowledge regarding the epidemiology and potential clinical significance of breast arterial calcifications detected on mammograms. Differences between groups were calculated using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test. An α level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Response rate was 22% (364/1662). The median age of respondents was 51 years (range: 29-76) and most were female (248/323, 77%). The most prevalent characteristics among respondents were as follows: 69% (223/323) had completed a breast imaging fellowship, 55% (179/323) were in private practice, 49% (158/323) practiced dedicated breast imaging, and 38% (124/323) had been in practice for more than 20 years. The prevalence of breast arterial calcifications was correctly estimated to be 1%-30% by 39% (125/323) of respondents. Most respondents correctly recognized the growing evidence of an association between breast arterial calcifications and coronary artery disease (275/323, 85%). However, only 15% (48/323) always reported the presence of these calcifications, and of those who report them at any time, only 0.7% (2/274) always issued recommendations. CONCLUSION: There are differences in both knowledge of the epidemiology of breast arterial calcifications and practices around their reporting amongst breast radiologists.

Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell lymphoma: Brief overview of current data and imaging findings.

In 2016, the World Health Organization added Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell lymphoma as a provisionally recognized lymphoma to the family of existing Anaplastic Large Cell lymphomas. Current estimates of the lifetime risk of the disease in women with textured breast implants range from 1:1,000 to 1:30,000. The mean interval from implant placement to diagnosis is 10.7 ± 4.6 years and the most common clinical symptom at presentation is breast swelling. A high level of clinical suspicion is recommended in patients presenting with breast symptoms and/or peri-implant fluid collection occurring more than 1 year after breast implant placement. Ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice, with a high sensitivity for peri-implant fluid and a high specificity for peri-implant mass. When ultrasound is inconclusive, breast MRI is indicated. As of today, all confirmed cases have tested positive for CD30 immunohistochemistry and the disease has shown to have an excellent prognosis when it is diagnosed earlier (localized disease), and when complete surgery, consisting of explantation, capsulectomy, and removal of any associated capsule mass, is performed. This overview summarizes the available epidemiological and clinical data of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell lymphoma, with an emphasis on imaging features.

Frontline brentuximab vedotin in breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.

We report a woman who developed BIA-ALCL 9 years after saline implant placement. The lymphoma manifested as a mass lesion associated with axillary lymphadenopathy. She was successfully treated with brentuximab vedotin with minimal toxicity. Brentuximab vedotin may be a promising frontline therapeutic modality for patients with BIA-ALCL.

Primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast: report of 2 cases and literature review.

Neuroendocrine tumors of the breast are very rare accounting for less than 0.1% of all breast cancers and less than 1% of all neuroendocrine tumors. Focal neuroendocrine differentiation can be found in different histologic types of breast carcinoma including in situ and invasive ductal or invasive lobular. However, primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast requires the expression of neuroendocrine markers in more than 50% of the cell population, the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ, and the absence of clinical evidence of concurrent primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of any other organ. Reports discussing the imaging characteristics of this rare carcinoma in different breast imaging modalities are scarce. We present 2 cases of primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast for which mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging findings and pathology findings are described. A review of the medical literature on this particular topic was performed, and the results are presented.

Utility of supplemental screening with breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the results of an initial round of supplemental screening with hand-held bilateral breast ultrasound following a negative screening mammogram in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, Institutional Research Board approved study was performed at a single academic tertiary breast center. Informed consent was waived. A systematic review of the breast imaging center database was conducted to identify and retrieve data for all asymptomatic women, who were found to have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue on screening bilateral mammograms performed from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 and who received a mammographic final assessment American College of Radiology's (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or BI-RADS category 2. Hand-held screening ultrasound was performed initially by a technologist followed by a radiologist. Chi-square and t-test were used and statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1210 women were identified. Of these, 394 underwent the offered supplemental screening ultrasound. BI-RADS category 1 or 2 was assigned to 323 women (81.9%). BI-RADS category 3 was assigned to 50 women (12.9%). A total of 26 biopsies/aspirations were recommended and performed in 26 women (6.6%). The most common finding for which biopsy was recommended was a solid mass (88.5%) with an average size of 0.9 cm (0.5-1.7 cm). Most frequent pathology result was fibroadenoma (60.8%). No carcinoma was found. CONCLUSION: Our data support the reported occurrence of a relatively high number of false positives at supplemental screening with breast ultrasound following a negative screening mammogram in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue, who are not at a high risk of developing breast cancer, and suggests that caution is necessary in establishing wide implementation of this type of supplemental screening for all women with dense breast tissue without considering other risk factors for breast cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women.

Women and health care professionals generally prefer intensive follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer. However, there are no survival differences between women who obtain intensive surveillance with imaging and laboratory studies compared with women who only undergo testing because of the development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients; more imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms (eg, palpable abnormality). Women with other risk factors that increase their lifetime risk for breast cancer may warrant evaluation with breast MRI. Furthermore, the quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. There is little justification for imaging to detect or rule out metastasis in asymptomatic women with newly diagnosed stage I breast cancer. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer.

Patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancers are often treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical intervention. The primary aims of this approach are to: 1) reduce tumor burden thereby permitting breast conservation rather than mastectomy; 2) promptly treat possible metastatic disease, whether or not it is detectable on preoperative staging; and 3) potentially tailor future chemotherapeutic decisions by monitoring in-vivo tumor response. Accurate radiological assessment permits optimal management and planning in this population. However, assessment of tumor size and response to treatment can vary depending on the modality used, the measurement technique (such as single longest diameter, 3-D measurements, or calculated tumor volume), and varied response of different tumor subtypes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (such as concentric shrinkage or tumor fragmentation). As discussed in further detail, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, US and MRI represent the key modalities with potential to help guide patient management. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge.

Appropriate imaging evaluation of nipple discharge depends the nature of the discharge. Imaging is not indicated for women with physiologic nipple discharge. For evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge, multiple breast imaging modalities are rated for evidence-based appropriateness under various scenarios. For women age 40 or older, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be the initial examination. Ultrasound is usually added as a complementary examination, with some exceptions. For women age 30 to 39, either mammogram or ultrasound may be used as the initial examination on the basis of institutional preference. For women age 30 or younger, ultrasound should be the initial examination, with mammography/DBT added when ultrasound shows suspicious findings or if the patient is predisposed to developing breast cancer. For men age 25 or older, mammography/DBT should be performed initially, with ultrasound added as indicated, given the high incidence of breast cancer in men with pathologic nipple discharge. Although MRI and ductography are not usually appropriate as initial examinations, each may be useful when the initial standard imaging evaluation is negative. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses.

Breast cancer is the most common female malignancy and the second leading cause of female cancer death in the United States. Although the majority of palpable breast lumps are benign, a new palpable breast mass is a common presenting sign of breast cancer. Any woman presenting with a palpable lesion should have a thorough clinical breast examination, but because many breast masses may not exhibit distinctive physical findings, imaging evaluation is necessary in almost all cases to characterize the palpable lesion. Recommended imaging options in the context of a palpable mass include diagnostic mammography and targeted-breast ultrasound and are dependent on patient age and degree of radiologic suspicion as detailed in the document Variants. There is little role for advanced technologies such as MRI, positron emission mammography, or molecular breast imaging in the evaluation of a palpable mass. When a suspicious finding is identified, biopsy is indicated. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Pain.

Breast pain (or tenderness) is a common symptom, experienced by up to 80% of women at some point in their lives. Fortunately, it is rarely associated with breast cancer. However, breast pain remains a common cause of referral for diagnostic breast imaging evaluation. Appropriate workup depends on the nature and focality of the pain, as well as the age of the patient. Imaging evaluation is usually not indicated if the pain is cyclic or nonfocal. For focal, noncyclic pain, imaging may be appropriate, mainly for reassurance and to identify treatable causes. Ultrasound can be the initial examination used to evaluate women under 30 with focal, noncyclic breast pain; for women 30 and older, diagnostic mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound may all serve as appropriate initial examinations. However, even in the setting of focal, noncyclic pain, cancer as an etiology is rare. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Cancer Screening.

Breast cancer screening recommendations are based on risk factors. For average-risk women, screening mammography and/or digital breast tomosynthesis is recommended beginning at age 40. Ultrasound (US) may be useful as an adjunct to mammography for incremental cancer detection in women with dense breasts, but the balance between increased cancer detection and the increased risk of a false-positive examination should be considered in the decision. For intermediate-risk women, US or MRI may be indicated as an adjunct to mammography depending upon specific risk factors. For women at high risk due to prior mantle radiation between the ages of 10 to 30, mammography is recommended starting 8 years after radiation therapy but not before age 25. For women with a genetic predisposition, annual screening mammography is recommended beginning 10 years earlier than the affected relative at the time of diagnosis but not before age 30. Annual screening MRI is recommended in high-risk women as an adjunct to mammography. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women.

Women newly diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer have an early-stage disease that can be effectively treated. Evidence provides little justification for performing imaging to exclude metastasis in asymptomatic women with stage I breast cancer. No differences have been found in survival or quality of life in women regardless of whether they underwent initial workup for metastatic disease. These women generally prefer intensive follow-up to detect an early recurrence. However, survival rates do not differ between women who obtain intensive screening and surveillance, with imaging and laboratory studies, and women who undergo testing only as a result of development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. In addition, quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients. Additional imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review by the panel include extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. When evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.