Benefit of semiannual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy.

PURPOSE: To compare cancer recurrence outcomes on the basis of compliant semiannual versus noncompliant annual ipsilateral mammographic surveillance following breast conservation therapy (BCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A HIPAA-compliant retrospective review was performed of post-BCT examinations from 1997 through 2008 by using a deidentified database. The Committee on Human Research did not require institutional review board approval for this study, which was considered quality assurance. Groups were classified according to compliance with institutional post-BCT protocol, which recommends semiannual mammographic examinations of the ipsilateral breast for 5 years. A compliant semiannual examination was defined as an examination with an interval of 0-9 months, although no examination had intervals less than 3 months. A noncompliant annual examination was defined as an examination with an interval of 9-18 months. Cancer recurrence outcomes were compared on the basis of the last examination interval leading to diagnosis. RESULTS: Initially, a total of 10 750 post-BCT examinations among 2329 asymptomatic patients were identified. Excluding initial mammographic follow-up, there were 8234 examinations. Of these, 7169 examinations were semiannual with 94 recurrences detected and 1065 examinations were annual with 15 recurrences detected. There were no differences in demographic risk factors or biopsy rates. Recurrences identified at semiannual intervals were significantly less advanced than those identified at annual intervals (stage I vs stage II, P = .04; stage 0 + stage I vs stage II, P = .03). Nonsignificant findings associated with semiannual versus annual intervals included smaller tumor size (mean, 11.7 vs 15.3 mm; P = .15) and node negativity (98% vs 91%, P = .28). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a semiannual interval is preferable for ipsilateral mammographic surveillance, allowing detection of a significantly higher proportion of cancer recurrences at an earlier stage than noncompliant annual surveillance.

Solitary dilated duct identified at mammography: outcomes analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to review the clinical and pathologic outcomes for cases of solitary dilated duct identified at mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For all screening mammography examinations during a 22-year period and all diagnostic mammography examinations during the last 10 of these years, the radiologists recorded the principal finding of each abnormal mammographic examination during image interpretation. Only examinations with the recorded finding of solitary dilated duct were studied. We examined radiology records to determine imaging follow-up and pathology records to determine histologic diagnosis, and we performed linkage with our regional tumor registry to identify cancers not biopsied at our institution. RESULTS: The finding of solitary dilated duct was recorded for nine (0.0038%) of 235,209 consecutive screenings and for 12 (0.041%) of 29,267 consecutive diagnostic mammography examinations. Five screening and five diagnostic cases were stable at follow-up (minimum interval, 2 years) and did not undergo biopsy; tumor registry linkage showed no subsequent cancer diagnosis. Biopsy was performed for four (44%) of nine screening and seven (58%) of 12 diagnostic cases. One cancer each (ductal carcinoma in situ) was identified from the screening and diagnostic populations, yielding positive predictive values of 11% (1/9) and 8% (1/12), respectively. CONCLUSION: Solitary dilated duct is a rare mammographic finding, this series being the largest reported to date. Although few cases are studied, solitary dilated duct appears to have a greater than 2% likelihood of malignancy, sufficiently high to suggest that a suspicious (BI-RADS 4a) assessment may be appropriate.

American College Of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging curriculum for resident and fellow education in breast imaging.

The ACR and the Society of Breast Imaging have revised the curriculum for resident and fellow education in breast imaging on the basis of substantial changes in breast imaging practice since the initial curriculum was published in 2000. This curriculum provides guidance to academic chairs, residency program directors, and academic section chiefs in assessing and improving their residency and fellowship training programs and indicates to residents and breast imaging fellows the topics they need to learn and the experience they should try to acquire during their training. Radiologists already in practice also may find the curriculum useful in outlining the material they need to know to remain up to date in the practice of breast imaging.