ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women accounting for about 30% of all new cancer cases and the incidence is constantly increasing. Implementation of mammographic screening has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of at least 20% over the last 30 years. Screening programs usually include all women irrespective of their risk of developing breast cancer and with age being the only determining factor. This approach has some recognized limitations, including underdiagnosis, false positive cases, and overdiagnosis. Indeed, breast cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women undergoing cancer screening. Supplemental imaging modalities, including digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, breast MRI, and, more recently, contrast-enhanced mammography, are available and have already shown potential to further increase the diagnostic performances. Use of breast MRI is recommended in high-risk women and women with extremely dense breasts. Artificial intelligence has also shown promising results to support risk categorization and interval cancer reduction. The implementation of a risk-stratified approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach may help to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio as well as the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: Regular mammography should still be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women and women with extremely dense breast tissue should use MRI for supplemental screening or US if MRI is not available. Women need to participate actively in the decision to undergo personalized screening. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Mammography is an effective imaging tool to diagnose breast cancer in an early stage and to reduce breast cancer mortality (evidence level I). Until more evidence is available to move to a personalized approach, regular mammography should be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women should start screening earlier; first with yearly breast MRI which can be supplemented by yearly or biennial mammography starting at 35-40 years old (evidence level I). Breast MRI screening should be also offered to women with extremely dense breasts (evidence level I). If MRI is not available, ultrasound can be performed as an alternative, although the added value of supplemental ultrasound regarding cancer detection remains limited. Individual screening recommendations should be made through a shared decision-making process between women and physicians.

A comparative study assessing the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation versus surgical treatment for osteoid osteoma: retrospective analysis in a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the efficacy of CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgical treatment in osteoid osteoma (OO) treated at the Medical University of Graz. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-institution study, we analysed data from January 2005 to January 2021 of patients with histological/radiological diagnosis of OO. CT and MRI scans were reviewed for typical findings. Means (with SD) and medians (with IQR) were reported for normally and non-normally distributed variables. Differences between groups were assessed using chi-squared tests and t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen patients (mean age: 21.6 ± 10.9 years; 63.9% males) with confirmed OO were retrospectively evaluated. 73 and 43 patients underwent RFA and surgery, respectively. In three cases, RFA combined with surgery was performed. Pre-intervention, 103 patients (88.8%) had undergone CT, and 101 had an MRI (87.1%). The nidus was confirmed in 82.5% of cases with CTs (85/103) and 63.4% with MRIs (64/101). The majority of nidi were located cortically (n = 96; 82.8%), most frequently in the femur (38 patients, 33.3%) with a median size of 8.0 mm (IQR: 5.0-12.0 mm). Median symptom duration before treatment was 6.0 (IQR: 4.0-13.0) months. The complication rate was 12.1% (14/116; 15.1% RFA vs. 7.0% surgery; p = 0.196). In total, 11.2% of patients had persistent symptoms after one week with clinical success rates of RFA and surgery, 86.3% and 90.7% (p = 0.647), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to surgical treatment, CT-guided percutaneous RFA is a safe, minimally invasive, reliable, and efficient treatment option for OO. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This article critically assesses the diagnosis and treatment of osteoid osteoma, emphasising accurate imaging, and detailing a non-invasive option for effective management. KEY POINTS: • This study analyses 116 cases of OO at one institution, focusing on symptom persistence, recurrence in short-term follow-up, and complications in two study groups. • Surgery showed higher, though not statistically significant, success despite comparable symptom persistence; CT displayed typical OO features more than MRI, regardless of the intramedullary, cortical and subperiosteal location as well as the site of the affected bone. • CT-guided RFA is an effective therapeutic alternative for OO compared to surgical intervention. In case of atypical OO appearance, RFA is not the first-line treatment.

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.