BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.

Background The performance of publicly available large language models (LLMs) remains unclear for complex clinical tasks. Purpose To evaluate the agreement between human readers and LLMs for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories assigned based on breast imaging reports written in three languages and to assess the impact of discordant category assignments on clinical management. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included reports for women who underwent MRI, mammography, and/or US for breast cancer screening or diagnostic purposes at three referral centers. Reports with findings categorized as BI-RADS 1-5 and written in Italian, English, or Dutch were collected between January 2000 and October 2023. Board-certified breast radiologists and the LLMs GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (OpenAI) and Bard, now called Gemini (Google), assigned BI-RADS categories using only the findings described by the original radiologists. Agreement between human readers and LLMs for BI-RADS categories was assessed using the Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1 value). Frequencies were calculated for changes in BI-RADS category assignments that would affect clinical management (ie, BI-RADS 0 vs BI-RADS 1 or 2 vs BI-RADS 3 vs BI-RADS 4 or 5) and compared using the McNemar test. Results Across 2400 reports, agreement between the original and reviewing radiologists was almost perfect (AC1 = 0.91), while agreement between the original radiologists and GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard was moderate (AC1 = 0.52, 0.48, and 0.42, respectively). Across human readers and LLMs, differences were observed in the frequency of BI-RADS category upgrades or downgrades that would result in changed clinical management (118 of 2400 [4.9%] for human readers, 611 of 2400 [25.5%] for Bard, 573 of 2400 [23.9%] for GPT-3.5, and 435 of 2400 [18.1%] for GPT-4; P < .001) and that would negatively impact clinical management (37 of 2400 [1.5%] for human readers, 435 of 2400 [18.1%] for Bard, 344 of 2400 [14.3%] for GPT-3.5, and 255 of 2400 [10.6%] for GPT-4; P < .001). Conclusion LLMs achieved moderate agreement with human reader-assigned BI-RADS categories across reports written in three languages but also yielded a high percentage of discordant BI-RADS categories that would negatively impact clinical management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

OBJECTIVES: To perform a survey among members of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) regarding the use of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). METHODS: A panel of nine board-certified radiologists developed a 29-item online questionnaire, distributed to all EUSOBI members (inside and outside Europe) from January 25 to March 10, 2023. CEM implementation, examination protocols, reporting strategies, and current and future CEM indications were investigated. Replies were exploratively analyzed with descriptive and non-parametric statistics. RESULTS: Among 434 respondents (74.9% from Europe), 50% (217/434) declared to use CEM, 155/217 (71.4%) seeing less than 200 CEMs per year. CEM use was associated with academic settings and high breast imaging workload (p < 0.001). The lack of CEM adoption was most commonly due to the perceived absence of a clinical need (65.0%) and the lack of resources to acquire CEM-capable systems (37.3%). CEM protocols varied widely, but most respondents (61.3%) had already adopted the 2022 ACR CEM BI-RADS® lexicon. CEM use in patients with contraindications to MRI was the most common current indication (80.6%), followed by preoperative staging (68.7%). Patients with MRI contraindications also represented the most commonly foreseen CEM indication (88.0%), followed by the work-up of inconclusive findings at non-contrast examinations (61.5%) and supplemental imaging in dense breasts (53.0%). Respondents declaring CEM use and higher CEM experience gave significantly more current (p = 0.004) and future indications (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a trend towards academic high-workload settings and its prevalent use in patients with MRI contraindications, CEM use and progressive experience were associated with increased confidence in the technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this first survey on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) use and perspectives among the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) members, the perceived absence of a clinical need chiefly drove the 50% CEM adoption rate. CEM adoption and progressive experience were associated with more extended current and future indications. KEY POINTS: • Among the 434 members of the European Society of Breast Imaging who completed this survey, 50% declared to use contrast-enhanced mammography in clinical practice. • Due to the perceived absence of a clinical need, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is still prevalently used as a replacement for MRI in patients with MRI contraindications. • The number of current and future CEM indications marked by respondents was associated with their degree of CEM experience.

Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are nowadays used in breast imaging but studies about their inter-reader agreement are lacking. Therefore, we compared the inter-reader agreement of CEM and MRI in breast cancer diagnosis in the same patients. METHODS: Breast MRI and CEM exams performed in a single center (09/2020-09/2021) for an IRB-approved study were retrospectively and independently evaluated by four radiologists of two different centers with different levels of experience who were blinded to the clinical and other imaging data. The reference standard was the histological diagnosis or at least 1-year negative imaging follow-up. Inter-reader agreement was examined using Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistics and compared with the Wald test. RESULTS: Of the 750 patients, 395 met inclusion criteria (44.5 ± 14 years old), with 752 breasts available for CEM and MRI. Overall agreement was moderate (κ = 0.60) for MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM. For expert readers, the agreement was substantial (κ = 0.77) for MRI and almost perfect (κ = 0.82) for CEM; for non-expert readers was fair (κ = 0.39); and for MRI and moderate (κ = 0.57) for CEM. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.50) for breast MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM and it showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert over the non-expert readers only for MRI (p = 0.011) and not for CEM (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement of CEM was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.012), including for both expert (p = 0.031) and non-expert readers (p = 0.005).

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: why, when, and where we need it.

KEY POINTS: • The use of CEM-guided biopsy is spreading after initial experiences in a few pilot centers.• CEM-guided biopsy has the potential to ensure fast, low-cost, and effective tissue sampling of MRI-detected and CEM-detected lesions that do not have a corresponding finding at morphological imaging.• The need and utility of CEM-guided biopsy are warranted by the impending expansion of morpho-functional imaging towards breast cancer screening for women with extremely dense breasts.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance.

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.

Mammography self-evaluation online test for screening readers: an Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To report and analyse the characteristics and performance of the first cohort of Italian radiologists completing the national mammography self-evaluation online test established by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM). METHODS: A specifically-built dataset of 132 mammograms (24 with screen-detected cancers and 108 negative cases) was preliminarily tested on 48 radiologists to define pass thresholds (62% sensitivity and 86% specificity) and subsequently made available online to SIRM members during a 13-month timeframe between 2018 and 2019. Associations between participants' characteristics, pass rates, and diagnostic accuracy were then investigated with descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 342 radiologists completed the test, 151/342 (44.2%) with success. All individual variables, except gender, showed a significant correlation with pass rates and diagnostic sensitivity, confirmed by univariate logistic regression, while only involvement in organised screening programs and number of mammograms read per year showed a positive association with specificity at univariate logistic regression. In the multivariable regression analysis, fewer variables remained significant: > 3000 mammograms read per year for success rate; female gender, public practice setting, and higher experience self-judgement for sensitivity; no variables were significantly associated with specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This national self-evaluation test effectively differentiated multiple aspects of mammographic reading experience, but specific breast imaging experience was shown not to strictly guarantee good diagnostic accuracy. Due to its easy use and the validity of obtained results, this test could be extended to all Italian breast radiologists, regardless of their experience, also as a Breast Unit accreditation criterion. KEY POINTS: • This self-evaluation test was found to be able to differentiate various degrees of mammographic interpretation experience. • Breast cancer screening readers should undergo a self-assessment test, since experience parameters alone do not guarantee diagnostic ability.

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making.

Abdominal obesity phenotype is associated with COVID-19 chest X-ray severity score better than BMI-based obesity.

PURPOSE: Chest X-ray (CXR) severity score and BMI-based obesity are predictive risk factors for COVID-19 hospital admission. However, the relationship between abdominal obesity and CXR severity score has not yet been fully explored. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the association of different adiposity indexes, including waist circumference and body mass index (BMI), with CXR severity score in 215 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Patients with abdominal obesity showed significantly higher CXR severity scores and had higher rates of CXR severity scores ≥ 8 compared to those without abdominal obesity (P < 0.001; P = 0.001, respectively). By contrast, patients with normal weight, with overweight and those with BMI-based obesity showed no significant differences in either CXR severity scores or in the rates of CXR severity scores ≥ 8 (P = 0.104; P = 0.271, respectively). Waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) correlated more closely with CXR severity scores than BMI (r = 0.43, P < 0.001; r = 0.41, P < 0.001; r = 0.17, P = 0.012, respectively). The area under the curves (AUCs) for waist circumference and WHtR were significantly higher than that for BMI in identifying a high CXR severity score (≥ 8) (0.68 [0.60-0.75] and 0.67 [0.60-0.74] vs 0.58 [0.51-0.66], P = 0.001). A multivariate analysis indicated abdominal obesity (risk ratio: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.25-2.45, P < 0.001), bronchial asthma (risk ratio: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.07-2.81, P = 0.026) and oxygen saturation at admission (risk ratio: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.97, P < 0.001) as the only independent factors associated with high CXR severity scores. CONCLUSION: Abdominal obesity phenotype is associated with a high CXR severity score better than BMI-based obesity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, when visiting the patient in a hospital setting, waist circumference should be measured, and patients with abdominal obesity should be monitored closely. Level of evidence Cross-sectional descriptive study, Level V.

CT-derived Chest Muscle Metrics for Outcome Prediction in Patients with COVID-19.

Background Lower muscle mass is a known predictor of unfavorable outcomes, but its prognostic impact on patients with COVID-19 is unknown. Purpose To investigate the contribution of CT-derived muscle status in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods Clinical or laboratory data and outcomes (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and death) were retrospectively retrieved for patients with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who underwent chest CT on admission in four hospitals in Northern Italy from February 21 to April 30, 2020. The extent and type of pulmonary involvement, mediastinal lymphadenopathy, and pleural effusion were assessed. Cross-sectional areas and attenuation by paravertebral muscles were measured on axial CT images at the T5 and T12 vertebral level. Multivariable linear and binary logistic regression, including calculation of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, were used to build four models to predict ICU admission and death, which were tested and compared by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results A total of 552 patients (364 men and 188 women; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 54-75 years]) were included. In a CT-based model, lower-than-median T5 paravertebral muscle areas showed the highest ORs for ICU admission (OR, 4.8; 95% CI: 2.7, 8.5; P < .001) and death (OR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.9; P = .03). When clinical variables were included in the model, lower-than-median T5 paravertebral muscle areas still showed the highest ORs for both ICU admission (OR, 4.3; 95%: CI: 2.5, 7.7; P < .001) and death (OR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.3, 3.7; P = .001). At receiver operating characteristic analysis, the CT-based model and the model including clinical variables showed the same area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for ICU admission prediction (AUC, 0.83; P = .38) and were not different in terms of predicting death (AUC, 0.86 vs AUC, 0.87, respectively; P = .28). Conclusion In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, lower muscle mass on CT images was independently associated with intensive care unit admission and in-hospital mortality. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The What, the Why, and the How of Liver Ablations: A Practical Guide for the Medical Oncologist.

Interventional oncology plays a major role within modern oncological patient management. Image-guided thermal ablation has been recognized as a successful local therapeutic option in patients with primary and secondary malignant liver diseases, as also recalled by the recent European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines on colorectal metastases. As image-guided treatments may be as effective as surgery in selected patients with liver lesions, the clinical oncologist should be familiar with the indications, risks, and technical aspects of liver ablation in order to provide their patients with the best outcomes. This article provides a broad overview of the most commonly used ablation techniques and highlights the most relevant technical aspects such as the ideal setting in the operating theatre; which image-guided methods are available, including the growing application of fusion imaging; or contrast-enhanced ultrasound for guiding/monitoring the procedure. A further aim is to expand the knowledge among medical oncologists about liver ablation procedures and to provide insights into the future perspectives of percutaneous minimally invasive procedures in the liver.

Dual-energy CT performance in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with regard to its post-processing techniques, namely linear blending (LB), iodine maps (IM), and virtual monoenergetic (VM) reconstructions, in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA. A systematic search on MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed in December 2019, looking for articles reporting the diagnostic performance of DECT on a per-patient level. Diagnostic performance meta-analyses were conducted grouping study parts according to DECT post-processing methods. Correlations between radiation or contrast dose and publication year were appraised. RESULTS: Seventeen studies entered the analysis. Only lobar and segmental acute PE were considered, subsegmental acute PE being excluded from analysis due to data heterogeneity or lack of data. LB alone was assessed in 6 study parts accounting for 348 patients, showing a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 and pooled specificity of 0.93. LB and IM together were assessed in 14 study parts accounting for 1007 patients, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 and pooled specificity of 0.90. LB, IM, and VM together were assessed in 2 studies (for a total 144 patients) and showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 and pooled specificity of 0.90. The area under the curve for LB alone, and LB together with IM was 0.93 (not available for studies using LB, IM and VM because of paucity of data). Radiation and contrast dose did not decrease with increasing year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the published performance of single-energy CT in diagnosing acute PE, either dual-energy or single-energy computed tomography can be comparably used for the detection of acute PE. KEY POINTS: • Dual-energy CT displayed pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.93 for linear blending alone, 0.89 and 0.90 for linear blending and iodine maps, and 0.90 and 0.90 for linear blending iodine maps, and virtual monoenergetic reconstructions. • The performance of dual-energy CT for patient management is not superior to that reported in literature for single-energy CT (0.83 sensitivity and 0.96 specificity). • Dual-energy CT did not yield substantial advantages in the identification of patients with acute pulmonary embolism compared to single-energy techniques.

Side of contrast injection and breast size correlate with motion artifacts grade and image quality on breast MRI.

BACKGROUND: Motion is a relevant cause of artifacts in breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), potentially degrading image quality, even with optimized protocols. PURPOSE: To investigate the causes of motion artifacts (MA) impacting on image quality (IQ) of contrast-enhanced breast MRI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective two-center study on consecutive 1.5-T contrast-enhanced breast MRI, independently reviewed by two radiologists on first subtracted and maximum intensity projection images to define the side most affected by MA. IQ was scored as 1 (optimal), 2 (reduced, but without reduction of diagnostic power), or 3 (reduced, with reduced diagnostic power). Correlations with injection side, breast size (A/B vs. C/D cups), patient age, clinical indication, and MRI scanner/protocol were assessed using χ2 and Fisher's exact statistics. RESULTS: In total, 237 examinations were included, with right injection performed in 124 (52%) and left in 113 (48%). MA were more frequent on the side ipsilateral to the injection (144/237, 61%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 54-67%) than on the contralateral (93/237, 95% CI 33-46%) (P < 0.001); IQ was scored 1 in 154/237 (65%), 2 in 63/237 (27%), and 3 in 20/237 (8%) examinations; patients with A/B cups showed higher IQ score than patients with C/D cups (scores 1, 2, and 3: 54% vs. 70%; 29% vs. 25%; 17% vs. 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). No significant correlations were found for MA (P≥0.106) or IQ (P ≥ 0.318) between ipsi- or contralateral injection and right/left injection, breast size, age, indication, or scanner/protocol. CONCLUSION: MA were more frequent in breasts ipsilateral to contrast injection and showed a reduced IQ for small breasts.

The value of coronal view as a stand-alone assessment in women undergoing automated breast ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to evaluate the value of automated breast ultrasound (AUS) in women with dense breast, in terms of reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. The assessment of coronal images alone versus the complete multiplanar (MPR) views was evaluated. METHODS: Between August and October 2017, consecutive patients with dense breast that were referred to our Institute, for post-mammography ultrasound assessment, pre-operative assessment or follow-up of known benign lesions, were invited to undergo an additional study with AUS. Three radiologists, (5, 15 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging), reviewed the exams twice: first assessing reconstructed coronal images alone, second the complete MPR views. Reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight women were included, for a total of 67 breast lesions, 25 (37%) malignant and 42 (63%) benign. Compared to MPR, coronal view was associated with: lower reading times, respectively, for the three readers: 83 ± 37, 84 ± 43 and 76 ± 30 versus 163 ± 109, 131 ± 57, 151 ± 42 s (p < 0.035); lower sensitivity: 44.8%, 62.1%, 55.2% versus 69.0% (p = 0.059), 65.5% (p = 0.063), 72.4% (p = 0.076), respectively; better specificity: 94.1%, 93.7%, 94.2% versus 89.5% (p = 0.093), 87.4% (p = 0.002), 91.6% (p = 0.383), respectively. Agreement between the most and the least experienced reader was fair to moderate for categorical variables and significant for continuous ones. CONCLUSION: The coronal view allows significantly lower reading times, a valuable feature in the screening setting, but its diagnostic performance makes the complete multiplanar assessment mandatory.

Biennial screening mammography: How many women ask for more? Estimate of the interval mammogram rate in an organised population-based screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the interval mammogram rate, i.e. the undertaking of an additional mammography between scheduled screening rounds, and identify factors influencing this phenomenon. METHODS: Data from our screening programme for the year 2014, excluding prevalent rounds, were analysed. Information about the number of women who underwent  interval mammograms was obtained reviewing the questionnaires and searching the department database. Data on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, number of screening rounds, previous recalls, general practitioner, and city of residence (used as a proxy of local socio-economic differences) were evaluated using chi-square test. RESULTS: Of 2780 screened women (incident rounds), 2566 had complete data (92%). The interval mammogram rate was 384/2566 (15%, 95% confidence interval 14-17%). Women classified with American College of Radiology c or d breast density categories showed a higher interval mammography probability than those with a and b density (p < 0.001); women in their second round showed a higher probability of interval mammogram compared to women in their fifth, sixth, or seventh round (p ≤ 0.004). No significant differences were found between women with and without an interval mammogram when considering previous recalls for a negative work-up (p = 0.241), positive breast cancer family history (p = 0.538), and city of residence (p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: The interval mammogram rate was relatively low (15%). Higher breast density and first of years of adherence to the programme were associated with higher interval mammogram rate.

Upgrade Rate of Percutaneously Diagnosed Pure Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 6458 Lesions.

Background Management of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is an unresolved clinical issue. Purpose To calculate the pooled upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure ADH. Materials and Methods A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed in October 2018. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA, guidelines were followed. A fixed- or random-effects model was used, along with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for study quality, and the Egger test was used for publication bias. Results Of 521 articles, 93 were analyzed, providing data for 6458 ADHs (5911 were managed with surgical excision and 547 with follow-up). Twenty-four studies used core-needle biopsy; 44, vacuum-assisted biopsy; 21, both core-needle and vacuum-assisted biopsy; and four, unspecified techniques. Biopsy was performed with stereotactic guidance in 29 studies; with US guidance in nine, with MRI guidance in nine, and with mixed guidance in eight. Overall heterogeneity was high (I2 = 80%). Subgroup analysis according to management yielded a pooled upgrade rate of 29% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26%, 32%) for surgically excised lesions and 5% (95% CI: 4%, 8%) for lesions managed with follow-up (P < .001). Heterogeneity was entirely associated with surgically excised lesions (I2 = 78%) rather than those managed with follow-up (I2 = 0%). Most variability was explained by guidance and needle caliper (P = .15). At subgroup analysis of surgically excised lesions, the pooled upgrade rate was 42% (95% CI: 31%, 53%) for US guidance, 23% (95% CI: 19%, 27%) for stereotactic biopsy, and 32% (95% CI: 22%, 43%) for MRI guidance, with heterogeneity (52%, 63%, and 56%, respectively) still showing the effect of needle caliper. When the authors considered patients with apparent complete lesion removal after biopsy (subgroups in 14 studies), the pooled upgrade rate was 14% (95% CI: 8%, 23%). Study quality was low to medium; the risk of publication bias was low (P = .10). Conclusion Because of a pooled upgrade rate higher than 2% (independent of biopsy technique, needle size, imaging guidance, and apparent complete lesion removal), atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed with percutaneous needle biopsy should be managed with surgical excision. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Brem in this issue.

Gadolinium Retention and Breast MRI Screening: More Harm Than Good?

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to describe the risk-benefit balance of contrast-enhanced breast MRI (CE-BMRI) screening. CONCLUSION. CE-BMRI confers risk of effects associated with administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs), including nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium retention. The risk-benefit balance of CE-BMRI screening is favorable for carriers of BRCA, TP53, or other deleterious mutations women who have undergone thoracic irradiation; and women at 20% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer. The balance is uncertain, however, for women at intermediate to average risk. Women must always receive detailed information regarding possible GBCA-associated effects.

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.

Correction to: Point estimate and reference normality interval of MRI-derived myocardial extracellular volume in healthy subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The original version of this article, published on 02 May 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: The presentation of Fig. 2 was incorrect. The corrected figure is given below. The original article has been corrected.