Diagnostic Performance of Point-of-Care Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measures to Reduce Biopsy in Breast Lesions at MRI: Clinical Validation.

Background The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group multicenter A6702 trial identified an optimal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff to potentially reduce biopsies by 21% without affecting sensitivity. Whether this performance can be achieved in clinical settings has not yet been established. Purpose To validate the performance of point-of-care ADC measurements with the A6702 trial ADC cutoff for reducing unnecessary biopsies in lesions detected at breast MRI. Materials and Methods Consecutive breast MRI examinations performed from May 2015 to January 2019 at a single medical center and showing biopsy-confirmed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions, without ipsilateral cancer, were identified. Point-of-care lesion ADC measurements collected at clinical interpretation were retrospectively evaluated. MRI examinations included axial T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Sensitivity and biopsy reduction rates were calculated by applying the A6702 optimal (ADC, 1.53 × 10-3 mm2/sec) and alternate conservative (1.68 × 10-3 mm2/sec) cutoffs. Lesion pathologic outcomes were the reference standard. To assess reproducibility, one radiologist repeated ADC measurements, and agreement was summarized using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results A total of 240 lesions in 201 women (mean age, 49 years ± 13 [SD]) with pathologic outcomes (63 malignant and 177 benign) were included. Applying the optimal ADC cutoff produced an overall biopsy reduction rate of 15.8% (38 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 11.2, 20.9]), with a sensitivity of 92.1% (58 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 82.4, 97.4]; sensitivity was 97.2% [35 of 36 lesions] [95% CI: 82.7, 99.6] for invasive cancers). Results were similar for screening versus diagnostic examinations (P = .92 and .40, respectively). Sensitivity was higher for masses than for nonmass enhancements (NMEs) (100% vs 85.3%; P = .009). Applying the conservative ADC cutoff achieved a sensitivity of 95.2% (60 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 86.7, 99.0]), with a biopsy reduction rate of 10.4% (25 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 6.7, 14.5]). Repeated single-reader measurements showed good agreement with clinical ADCs (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]). Conclusion This study validated the clinical use of ADC cutoffs to reduce MRI-prompted biopsies by up to 16%, with a suggested tradeoff of lowered sensitivity for in situ and microinvasive disease manifesting as NME. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02022579 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Honda and Iima in this issue.

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community-based practice.

Incidence of interval cancers is an important outcome in assessing efficacy of screening. Our primary objective was to compare the incidence of interval cancers detected with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a large community health system. Our secondary objectives were to compare the patient and tumor characteristics of interval cancers, cancer detection rate, and recall rate. Interval cancers before and after implementation of DBT (2012-2014 DM group; 2016-2018 DBT group) were reviewed. Patient factors (age, race, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, known BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genetic mutation, baseline mammogram, and presentation) and tumor characteristics (in situ versus invasive, grade, size, hormone receptor status, and nodal status) were compared with the chi-squared test or the MidP exact test. Rates (detection and recall) were compared using a z-score. The rates of interval cancers with DM (0.30 per 1000 [35/117 099]) and DBT (0.33 per 1000 [40/119 746]) were similar (P = .3). Proportion of node-positive interval cancers was lower in the DBT group (22.9% [8/35] vs 48% [15/31], p.01). Otherwise, the patient and tumor characteristics were similar. The cancer detection rate increased (5.9 per 1000 [709/119 746] vs 3.5 per 1000 [411/117 099], P = .0001), and the recall rate decreased with DBT (8.6% [10 347/119 746] versus 10.7% [12 508/117 099], (P < .0001). Although the cancer detection rate was higher with DBT, the rate of interval breast cancers was similar in both groups. Node-positive invasive interval cancers were decreased with DBT.

Atypical gynecomastia mimicking breast malignancy on mammography, sonography, and 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT in the setting of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.

A 60-year-old man with metastatic prostate cancer presented with breast swelling for one year. Suspicious breast masses were identified in both breasts with mammography and ultrasound. Biopsy of both masses showed florid gynecomastia without malignancy. Sixteen months later, the patient underwent 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer; this showed focal radiotracer uptake in both breasts. Repeat mammogram and ultrasound showed these areas to correspond with the previously biopsied masses, which were stable. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of gynecomastia mimicking malignancy on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT.

Effectiveness and safety of expanded perioperative thromboprophylaxis in complex gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of an expanded perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis strategy in women undergoing complex gynecologic surgery. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 527 patients undergoing major surgery at a single institution over a thirty-month interval during which the gynecologic oncology service implemented an expanded approach to VTE prophylaxis. We compared rates of VTE pre- and post-intervention as well as bleeding and infectious complications. RESULTS: Prior to the intervention, there were 23 VTE events in 345 patients (rate of 6.67%): 8 deep vein thromboses (DVTs) and 15 pulmonary emboli (PEs). Post-intervention, there were 5 VTE events in 182 patients (2.7%): 3 DVTs and 2 PEs (RR=0.4, p=0.056). Time-to-event analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of VTE events in the pre-intervention time frame compared to the post-intervention period (p=0.049). There were no significant differences in bleeding or infection complications between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a perioperative VTE prophylaxis protocol was safe, feasible and resulted in a clinically significant reduction in symptomatic VTE. Preoperative single-dose unfractionated heparin for all patients, combined with two weeks of thromboprophylaxis in gynecologic cancer patients, may decrease VTE events without increasing bleeding or infection.

Comparison of Narrow-angle and Wide-angle Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Systems in Clinical Practice.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a pseudo 3D mammography imaging technique that has become widespread since gaining Food and Drug Administration approval in 2011. With this technology, a variable number of tomosynthesis projection images are obtained over an angular range between 15° and 50° for currently available clinical DBT systems. The angular range impacts various aspects of clinical imaging, such as radiation dose, scan time, and image quality, including visualization of calcifications, masses, and architectural distortion. This review presents an overview of the differences between narrow- and wide-angle DBT systems, with an emphasis on their applications in clinical practice. Comparison examples of patients imaged on both narrow- and wide-angle DBT systems illustrate these differences. Understanding the potential variable appearance of imaging findings with narrow- and wide-angle DBT systems is important for radiologists, particularly when comparison images have been obtained on a different DBT system. Furthermore, knowledge about the comparative strengths and limitations of DBT systems is needed for appropriate equipment selection.

A roadmap of resident-led initiatives to promote research within the radiology department.

RATIONAL: While radiology residents must participate in a scholarly project per Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Program Requirements, some residency programs may lack a well-thought out, cohesive approach to research that incorporates the residents' perspective. Our objective was to improve the radiology resident research experience with resident-led initiatives. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An annual resident research survey was created and distributed to 28 radiology residents in December 2018. Following the survey, a newly formed resident research committee developed a six-step strategic framework of resident-led initiatives to promote research and scholarly activity within the department: Reflect, Recruit, Regroup, Revive, Recognize, and Review. Outcomes of this framework were evaluated with the second annual resident research survey in December 2019. RESULTS: Our institution identified areas of improvement on the 2019 survey after the implementation of the six-step initiatives upon comparison to the 2018 survey. A greater number of residents reported that they had adequate or somewhat adequate resources for research within the department in 2019 (95.2% [20/21]) in comparison to 2018 (70.6% [12/17]) (p = 0.03). A greater percentage of residents found available research projects engaging/interesting in 2019 (80.9% [17/21]) compared to 2018 (70.6% 12/17) (p = 0.49). The most commonly reported departmental resources needed to encourage research on the 2019 survey were dedicated research time (26.9%, 18 out of 67 total responses) and mentorship/encouragement from the faculty (19.4%, 13/67). CONCLUSION: With a specific framework and appropriate departmental support, resident-led initiatives can improve the research experience within the radiology department from the residents' perspective.