The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of mammographic, radiologist, and patient factors on BI-RADS 3 assessment at diagnostic mammography in patients recalled from screening mammography. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study of consecutive unique diagnostic mammography examinations in asymptomatic patients recalled from screening mammography March 5, 2014, to December 31, 2019, was conducted in a single large United States health care institution. Mammographic features (mass, calcification, distortion, asymmetry), breast density, prior examination, and BI-RADS assessment were extracted from reports by natural language processing. Patient age, race, and ethnicity were extracted from the electronic health record. Radiologist years in practice, recall rate, and number of interpreted diagnostic mammograms were calculated. A mixed effect logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with likelihood of BI-RADS 3 compared with other BI-RADS assessments. RESULTS: A total of 12 080 diagnostic mammography examinations were performed during the study period, yielding 2010 (16.6%) BI-RADS 3 and 10 070 (83.4%) other BI-RADS assessments. Asymmetry (odds ratio [OR] = 6.49, P <.001) and calcification (OR = 5.59, P <.001) were associated with increased likelihood of BI-RADS 3 assessment; distortion (OR = 0.20, P <.001), dense breast parenchyma (OR = 0.82, P <.001), prior examination (OR = 0.63, P = .01), and increasing patient age (OR = 0.99, P <.001) were associated with decreased likelihood. Mass, patient race or ethnicity, and radiologist factors were not significantly associated with BI-RADS 3 assessment. Malignancy rate for BI-RADS 3 lesions was 1.6%. CONCLUSION: Asymmetry and calcifications had an increased likelihood of BI-RADS 3 assessment at diagnostic evaluation with low likelihood of malignancy, while radiologist features had no association.

Imaging characteristics of interval cancers detected on Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).

OBJECTIVE: To compare imaging features of interval cancers detected in patients screened with full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS/METHODS: This retrospective observational study consisted of female patients undergoing screening DM or FFDM at an academic medical center and two outpatient imaging facilities between January 2012 and June 2017. A natural language processing algorithm queried breast imaging reports for breast density and BI-RADS category. This was cross-referenced to an institutional breast cancer registry to identify interval cancers. Retrospective consensus review of the cases was done to categorize imaging features of interval cancers on FFDM vs DBT. RESULTS: The rate of interval cancers was comparable in patients screened with FFDM (30/39793) and DBT (29/32180) (p = 0.58). There was no significant difference in the rate, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. The most common mammographic features on diagnostic imaging across both groups was the presence of a mass (13/47). Almost equally common was negative diagnostic mammogram with mass detected only on ultrasound (11/47). The rate of interval cancers detected by high-risk surveillance breast MRI was increased in patients who previously had screening with DBT relative to those who had screening with FFDM (p = 0.0419). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in rate of detection, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. However, across both cohorts, the most common features on diagnostic mammogram were either the presence of a mass or a negative mammogram.

Positive predictive value of axillary lymph node cortical thickness and nodal, clinical, and tumor characteristics in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Axillary lymph nodes (LNs) with cortical thickness > 3 mm have a higher likelihood of malignancy. To examine the positive predictive value (PPV) of axillary LN cortical thickness in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, and nodal, clinical, and tumor characteristics associated with axillary LN metastasis. METHODS: Retrospective review of axillary LN fine needle aspirations (FNAs) performed 1/1/2018-12/31/2019 included 135 axillary FNAs in 134 patients who underwent axillary surgery. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, histopathology, and imaging features were obtained from medical records. Hypothesis testing was performed to identify predictors of axillary LN metastasis. RESULTS: Cytology was positive in 72/135 (53.3%), negative in 61/135 (45.2%), and non-diagnostic in 2/135 (1.5%). At surgery, histopathology was positive in 84 (62.2%) and negative in 51 (37.8%). LN cortices were thicker in metastatic compared to negative nodes (p < 0.0001). PPV of axillary LNs with cortical thickness ≥ 3 mm, ≥ 3.5 mm, ≥ 4 mm and, ≥ 4.25 mm was 0.62 [95% CI 0.53, 0.70], 0.63 [0.54, 0.72], 0.67 [0.57, 0.76] , and 0.74 [0.64, 0.83], respectively. At multivariable analysis, abnormal hilum (OR = 3.44, p = 0.016) and diffuse cortical thickening (OR = 2.86, p = 0.038) were associated with nodal metastasis. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, increasing axillary LN cortical thickness, abnormal fatty hilum, and diffuse cortical thickening are associated with nodal metastasis. PPV of axillary LN cortical thickness ≥ 3 mm and ≥ 3.5 mm is similar but increases for cortical thickness ≥ 4 mm. FNA of axillary LNs with cortex < 4 mm may be unnecessary for some patients undergoing sentinel LN biopsy.

Synthetic Mammography: Benefits, Drawbacks, and Pitfalls.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) allows three-dimensional assessment of breast tissue; however, DBT requires a two-dimensional (2D) image for comparison with prior mammograms and accurate interpretation of calcifications. Traditionally, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has been performed after the DBT image acquisition. Synthetic mammography (SM), the 2D reconstruction of the tomosynthesis slice dataset, has been designed to replace FFDM. Advantages of SM include decreased image acquisition time and decreased radiation exposure, with maintained or improved screening performance metrics. Because SM algorithms give extra weight to lesion-like characteristics (eg, calcifications and architectural distortions), they may enable increased visibility of these characteristics relative to that at FFDM. Although SM algorithms were designed to improve lesion identification, they have led to varied outcomes in studies reported in the literature. Compared with FFDM, SM has been reported to be associated with a higher false-positive rate for calcifications, decreased conspicuity of asymmetries, lower breast density assessments, and imaging artifacts (eg, metallic artifact, bright-band artifact, blurring of the axilla, and truncation artifact). The authors review the literature on SM, including its implementation, benefits, and artifacts. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Patient and System Factors Associated With Completed Follow-Up of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Breast Imaging Findings.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate patient factors and health system test ordering and scheduling processes associated with completed BI-RADS 3 breast imaging follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective review of reports from January 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, identified BI-RADS 3 findings corresponding to unique patient encounters (index examinations). The electronic health record was queried for patient, examination, and health system ordering or scheduling data including follow-up order status (order placed, performed; order placed, scheduled, but not performed; order placed, unscheduled; no order placed); ordering provider specialty and health system affiliation (primary care versus other, internal versus external to health system); and ordering department (radiology staff versus referring physician staff). Patient home addresses were categorized by area deprivation index (University of Wisconsin's Neighborhood Atlas). Univariable and multivariable analysis identified patient, examination, and ordering or scheduling factors associated with completed follow-up imaging within 15 months of BI-RADS 3 assessment. RESULTS: There were 3,104 unique BI-RADS 3 assessments, 2,561 (82.5%) with completed BI-RADS 3 follow-up within 15 months of study examination. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with incomplete follow-up included ultrasound (odds ratio [OR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.38-0.60; P < .001) and MRI (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.50-1.00; P = .049) versus mammogram; patients living in the highest disadvantaged neighborhoods (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50-0.98; P = .04); patients <40 years (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.11-0.19; P < .001); Asian race (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.81; P = .003); order placement >3 months (OR, 0.05; 95% CI 0.02-0.16; P < .001) after index examination or scheduling >6 months after order placement (OR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.14-0.87; P = .02); order placement by breast oncology or breast surgery departments (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.73; P = .01) versus radiology department. DISCUSSION: Incomplete BI-RADS 3 follow-up is associated with ultrasound or MRI, most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, younger patients, Asian race, delayed order entry, and follow-up examination ordering and scheduling by non-radiology departments.

Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

BACKGROUND. Studies establishing the validity of BI-RADS category 3 excluded patients with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Use of category 3 in patients with PHBC may be impacted not only by this population's increased breast cancer risk, but also by adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) over full-field digital mammography (FFDM). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to compare the frequency, outcomes, and additional characteristics of BI-RADS category 3 assessments between FFDM and DBT in patients with PHBC. METHODS. This retrospective study included 14,845 mammograms in 10,118 patients (mean age, 63 years) with PHBC who had undergone mastectomy and/or lumpectomy. Of these, 8422 examinations were performed by FFDM from October 2014 to September 2016, and 6423 examinations by FFDM with DBT from February 2017 to December 2018, after interval conversion of the center's mammography units. Information was extracted from the EHR and radiology reports. FFDM and DBT groups were compared in the entire sample and among index category 3 lesions (i.e., earliest category 3 assessment per lesion). RESULTS. The frequency of category 3 assessment was lower for DBT than FFDM (5.6% vs 6.4%; p = .05). DBT, compared with FFDM, showed a lower malignancy rate for category 3 lesions (1.8% vs 5.0%; p = .04), higher malignancy rate for category 4 lesions (32.0% vs 23.2%; p = .03), and no difference in malignancy rate for category 5 lesions (100.0% vs 75.0%; p = .24). Analysis of index category 3 lesions included 438 and 274 lesions for FFDM and DBT, respectively. For category 3 lesions, DBT, compared with FFDM, showed lower PPV3 (13.9% vs 36.1%; p = .02) and a more frequent mammographic finding of mass (33.2% vs 23.1%; p = .003). CONCLUSION. The malignancy rate for category 3 lesions in patients with PHBC was less than the accepted limit (2%) for DBT (1.8%), but not FFDM (5.0%). A lower malignancy rate for category 3 lesions but higher malignancy rate for category 4 lesions for DBT supports more appropriate application of category 3 assessment in patients with PHBC through use of DBT. CLINICAL IMPACT. These insights may help establish whether category 3 assessments in patients with PHBC are within benchmarks for early detection of second cancers and reduction of benign biopsies.

Multimodality Imaging Review of HER2-positive Breast Cancer and Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/neu or ErbB2)-positive breast cancers comprise 15%-20% of all breast cancers. The most common manifestation of HER2-positive breast cancer at mammography or US is an irregular mass with spiculated margins that often contains calcifications; at MRI, HER2-positive breast cancer may appear as a mass or as nonmass enhancement. HER2-positive breast cancers are often of intermediate to high nuclear grade at histopathologic analysis, with increased risk of local recurrence and metastases and poorer overall prognosis. However, treatment with targeted monoclonal antibody therapies such as trastuzumab and pertuzumab provides better local-regional control and leads to improved survival outcome. With neoadjuvant treatments, including monoclonal antibodies, taxanes, and anthracyclines, women are now potentially able to undergo breast conservation therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy versus mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection. Thus, the radiologist's role in assessing the extent of local-regional disease and response to neoadjuvant treatment at imaging is important to inform surgical planning and adjuvant treatment. However, assessment of treatment response remains difficult, with the potential for different imaging modalities to result in underestimation or overestimation of disease to varying degrees when compared with surgical pathologic analysis. In particular, the presence of calcifications at mammography is especially difficult to correlate with the results of pathologic analysis after chemotherapy. Breast MRI findings remain the best predictor of pathologic response. The authors review the initial manifestations of HER2-positive tumors, the varied responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the challenges in assessing residual cancer burden through a multimodality imaging review with pathologic correlation. © RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Patterns of Screening Recall Behavior Among Subspecialty Breast Radiologists.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Determine whether there are patterns of lesion recall among breast imaging subspecialists interpreting screening mammography, and if so, whether recall patterns correlate to morphologies of screen-detected cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective review included all screening examinations January 3, 2012-October 1, 2018 interpreted by fifteen breast imaging subspecialists at a large academic medical center and two outpatient imaging centers. Natural language processing identified radiologist recalls by lesion type (mass, calcifications, asymmetry, architectural distortion); proportions of callbacks by lesion types were calculated per radiologist. Hierarchical cluster analysis grouped radiologists based on recall patterns. Groups were compared to overall practice and each other by proportions of lesion types recalled, and overall and lesion-specific positive predictive value-1 (PPV1). RESULTS: Among 161,859 screening mammograms with 13,086 (8.1%) recalls, Hierarchical cluster analysis grouped 15 radiologists into five groups. There was substantial variation in proportions of lesions recalled: calcifications 13%-18% (Chi-square 45.69, p < 0.00001); mass 16%-44% (Chi-square 498.42, p < 0.00001); asymmetry 13%-47% (Chi-square 660.93, p < 0.00001) architectural distortion 6%-20% (Chi-square 283.81, p < 0.00001). Radiologist groups differed significantly in overall PPV1 (range 5.6%-8.8%; Chi-square 17.065, p = 0.0019). PPV1 by lesion type varied among groups: calcifications 9.2%-15.4% (Chi-square 2.56, p = 0.6339); mass 5.6%-8.5% (Chi-square 1.31, p = 0.8597); asymmetry 3.4%-5.9% (Chi-square 2.225, p = 0.6945); architectural distortion 5.6%-10.8% (Chi-square 5.810, p = 0.2138). Proportions of recalled lesions did not consistently correlate to proportions of screen-detected cancer. CONCLUSION: Breast imaging subspecialists have patterns for screening mammography recalls, suggesting differential weighting of imaging findings for perceived malignant potential. Radiologist recall patterns are not always predictive of screen-detected cancers nor lesion-specific PPV1s.

Live Mammographic Screening Interpretation Versus Offline Same-Day Screening Interpretation at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare screening mammography performance metrics for immediate (live) interpretation versus offline interpretation at a cancer center. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, retrospective comparison of screening mammography metrics at a cancer center for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 (live period), and September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 (offline period), was performed. Before July 2020, screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited (live period), and diagnostic workup was performed concurrently. After the coronavirus disease 2019 shutdown from March to mid-June 2020, offline same-day interpretation was instituted. Patients with abnormal screening results returned for separate diagnostic evaluation. Screening metrics of positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), cancer detection rate (CDR), and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were compared for 17 radiologists who interpreted during both periods. Statistical significance was assessed using χ2 analysis. RESULTS: In the live period, there were 7,105 screenings, 635 recalls, and 51 screen-detected cancers. In the offline period, there were 7,512 screenings, 586 recalls, and 47 screen-detected cancers. Comparison of live screening metrics versus offline metrics produced the following results: AIR, 8.9% (635 of 7,105) versus 7.8% (586 of 7,512) (P = .01); PPV1, 8.0% (51 of 635) versus 8.0% (47 of 586); and CDR, 7.2/1,000 versus 6.3/1,000 (P = .50). When grouped by >10% AIR or <10% AIR for the live period, the >10% AIR group showed a significant decrease in AIR for offline interpretation (from 12.7% to 9.7%, P < .001), whereas the <10% AIR group showed no significant change (from 7.4% to 6.7%, P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to offline screening interpretation from immediate interpretation at a cancer center was associated with lower AIR and similar CDR and PPV1. This effect was seen largely in radiologists with AIR > 10% in the live setting.

Mixed and Purely Hyperechoic Breast Masses: A Radiologic-Pathologic Review.

Breast US is a mainstay of modern-day breast imaging, especially in the diagnostic and interventional realm. The BI-RADS atlas described six echo patterns relative to the subcutaneous mammary fat: anechoic, hypoechoic, complex cystic and solid, isoechoic, heterogeneous, and hyperechoic. Hyperechoic breast masses demonstrate increased echogenicity relative to subcutaneous mammary fat or equal to fibroglandular tissue. Pathologically, the hyperechoic pattern at breast US results from the intermingling of different components: adipose tissue, fibrous tissue or stroma, secretions, blood or vascularity, and calcifications. Most hyperechoic masses are benign, especially homogeneously hyperechoic masses. However, hyperechogenicity does not exclude malignancy. Two echo patterns have been identified in hyperechoic malignant lesions, including those with a hypoechoic center and hyperechoic rim known as the rim pattern and a mass with hyperechoic areas distributed through the mass known as a dispersed pattern. This article aims to illustrate the echogenic patterns of breast lesions and various benign and malignant hyperechoic breast lesions with radiologic-pathologic correlation and to increase awareness of heterogeneously hyperechoic breast lesions as a manifestation of malignancy.

Electronic Worklist Improves Timeliness of Screening Mammogram Interpretation in an Urban Underserved Population.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an electronic workflow update on screening mammography turnaround time and time to diagnostic imaging for mammography performed on our urban mobile mammography van and at an urban community health center. METHOD: Prior to 10/15/2019, screening exams for the mammography van and urban community health center were made available for interpretation to a single designated radiologist via a manually generated paper list. On 10/15/2019, screening exams were routed electronically onto PACS for any breast radiologist across our Network to interpret. Screening mammogram turnaround time (defined as time form image acquisition to report finalization), time to diagnostic imaging, and time to tissue sampling were collected for pre- and post-implementation periods (6/1-9/30/2019 and 11/1/2019-2/29/2020, respectively) and compared via student t-test and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS: The number of screening exams in the pre- and post-implementation periods were 851 and 728 exams, respectively. Patients were predominately Black and/or African American (400/1579, 25%), non-English speaking (858/1579, 54%) and insured by Medicaid (751/1579, 48%). After implementation of the electronic workflow, turnaround time decreased from 101.0 to 36.4 hours (63.9%, P <0.001) and statistical process control analyses showed sustained decrease in mean turnaround time. However, mean time to diagnostic imaging and tissue sampling were unchanged after implementation (39 vs 45, days; P = 0.330 and 43 vs 59; P = 0.187, respectively). CONCLUSION: Electronic workflow management can reduce screening mammography turnaround time for underserved populations, but additional efforts are warranted to improve time to imaging follow-up for abnormal screening mammograms.

Understanding Perceived Appreciation to Create a Culture of Wellness.

OBJECTIVE: To fully address physician burnout, academic medical centers need cultures that promote well-being. One observed driver of a culture of wellness is perceived appreciation. The authors identified several contributors to perceived appreciation among faculty at a large, metropolitan academic institution through use of a novel survey. METHODS: The authors surveyed clinical faculty in five departments: psychiatry, emergency medicine, internal medicine, thoracic surgery, and radiology. Two open-ended response questions assessed sources of perceived and lack of perceived appreciation in narrative form. The authors also collected data on gender and department identity. Grounded theory methodology was used to analyze the narrative responses and design thinking to brainstorm specific recommendations based on the main themes identified. RESULTS: A total of 179 faculty respondents filled out the survey for an overall response rate of 29%. Major drivers of perceived appreciation were patient and families (42%); physician, trainee and non-physician colleagues (32.7%); chairs (10%); and compensation (3.3%). Major drivers of perceived lack of appreciation were disrespect for time and skill level, including inadequate staffing (30%); devaluation by a physician colleague, chief of one's service or the chair (29%); poor communication and transparency (13%); and patient and family anger (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to improve perceived appreciation include structured communication of patient gratitude, community building programs, top of licensure initiatives and accountability for physician wellness, and inclusivity efforts from organizational leaders.

Use of Real Time Specimen Radiography to Evaluate the Number of Stereotactic Core Biopsy Specimens Containing Calcifications Required for Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimum number of stereotactic biopsy specimens containing calcifications sufficient for pathologic diagnosis and the minimum number of specimens containing calcifications sufficient for immunohistochemistry (IHC) in cases of malignancy. METHODS: In this IRB-exempt quality assurance initiative, individual specimens from 126 patients with 129 calcified targets retrieved using a stereotactic system with real time specimen imaging were prospectively analyzed. Pathology was reported independently for each specimen containing calcifications. In every case, the pathologist reported which specimen containing calcifications was sufficient for diagnosis and, in cases of malignancy, which calcified specimen was sufficient for diagnosis and IHC. RESULTS: A diagnosis was made from the first calcified specimen in 74% of cases (95/129), from the first two calcified specimens in 92% (119/129) of cases, and from the first three calcified specimens in 100% of cases. Pathology was benign in 66% (85/129) of cases, with the diagnosis made from the first calcified specimen in 78% (66/85) of cases. High-risk lesions were the primary pathology in 8% (11/129) of cases, with 55% (6/11) diagnosed from the first calcified specimen. Pathology was malignant in 26% (33/129) of cases. The first calcified specimen was sufficient for diagnosis and IHC in 73% (24/33) of malignancies and the first three calcified specimens were sufficient for diagnosis and IHC in all cases of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Three cores verified to contain calcifications on real time specimen imaging were sufficient to make a diagnosis in all cases and to make a diagnosis and obtain IHC in nearly all cases of malignancy.

Patients characteristics related to screening mammography cancellation and rescheduling rates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify patient characteristics associated with screening mammography cancellations and rescheduling during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Scheduled screening mammograms during three time periods were retrospectively reviewed: state-mandated shutdown (3/17/2020-6/16/2020) during which screening mammography was cancelled, a period of 2 months immediately after screening mammography resumed (6/17/2020-8/16/2020), and a representative period prior to COVID-19 (6/17/2019-8/16/2019). Relative risk of cancellation before COVID-19 and after reopening was compared for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, history of chronic disease, and exam location, controlling for other collected variables. Risk of failure to reschedule was similarly compared between all 3 time periods. RESULTS: Overall cancellation rate after reopening was higher than before shutdown (7663/16595, 46% vs 5807/15792, 37%; p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation after reopening increased with age (1.20 vs 1.27 vs 1.36 for ages at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartile or 53, 61, and 70 years, respectively, p < 0.001). Relative risk of cancellation was also higher among Medicare patients (1.41) compared to Medicaid and those with other providers (1.26 and 1.21, respectively, p < 0.001) and non-whites compared to whites (1.34 vs 1.25, p = 0.03). Rescheduling rate during shutdown was higher than before COVID-19 and after reopening for all patients (10,658/13593, 78%, 3569/5807, 61%, and 4243/7663, respectively, 55%, p < 0.001). Relative risk of failure to reschedule missed mammogram was higher in hospitals compared to outpatient settings both during shutdown and after reopening (0.62 vs 0.54, p = 0.005 and 1.29 vs 1.03, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Minority race/ethnicity, Medicare insurance, and advanced age were associated with increased risk of screening mammogram cancellation during COVID-19.

Lobular neoplasia detected at MRI-guided biopsy: imaging findings and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To review MRI findings of pure lobular neoplasia (LN) on MRI guided biopsy, evaluate surgical and clinical outcomes, and assess imaging findings predictive of upgrade to malignancy. METHODS: HIPAA compliant, IRB-approved retrospective review of our MRI-guided breast biopsy database from October 2008-January 2015. Biopsies yielding atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ were included in the analysis; all biopsy slides were reviewed by a dedicated breast pathologist. Imaging indications, MRI findings, and histopathology were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed Fisher exact-test and the t-test, and 95% CIs were determined. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Database search yielded 943 biopsies in 785 patients of which 65/943 (6.9%) reported LN as the highest risk pathologic lesion. Of 65 cases, 32 were found to have LN as the dominant finding on pathology and constituted the study population. All 32 findings were mammographically and sonographically occult. Three of 32 (9.3%) cases of lobular neoplasia were upgraded to malignancy, all LCIS (one pleomorphic and two classical). The most common MRI finding was focal, heterogenous non-mass enhancement with low T2 signal. No clinical features or imaging findings were predictive of upgrade to malignancy. CONCLUSION: Incidence of pure lobular neoplasia on MRI guided biopsy is low, with comparatively low incidence of upgrade to malignancy. No imaging or clinical features are predictive of upgrade on surgical excision, therefore, prudent radiologic-pathologic correlation is necessary.

Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To compare lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven breast imagers each prospectively evaluated 107-228 screening mammograms (FFDM, DBT, and SM; total 1206 examinations) over 12 weeks in sets of 10-50 consecutive examinations. Interpretation sessions alternated as follows: SM + DBT, then FFDM, or FFDM + DBT, then SM. Lesion conspicuity on SM versus FFDM (equal/better versus less) was assessed using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. DBT-only findings were excluded. RESULTS: Overall 1082 of 1206 (89.7%) examinations were assessed BI-RADS 1/2, and 124 of 1206 (10.3%) assessed BI-RADS 0. There were 409 evaluated findings, including 134 masses, 119 calcifications, 72 asymmetries, 49 architectural distortion, and 35 focal asymmetries. SM conspicuity compared to FFDM conspicuity for lesions was rated 1) masses: 77 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, 57 (43%) less conspicuous; 2) asymmetries/focal asymmetries: 61 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, and 46 (43%) less conspicuous; 3) architectural distortion: 46 (94%) equal or more conspicuous, 3 (6%) less conspicuous; 4) calcifications: 115 (97%) equal or more conspicuous, 4 (3%) less conspicuous. SM had better conspicuity than FFDM for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries. CONCLUSION: Compared to FFDM, SM has better conspicuity for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.

Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND. Patients with a history of breast cancer are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancers and need close clinical and imaging follow-up. Limited data are available on screening of these patients with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the screening mammography performance of DBT compared with FFDM among patients with a history of breast cancer undergoing imaging at a large academic oncology center. METHODS. This retrospective study included consecutively registered patients with a personal history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy or lumpectomy who underwent screening FFDM from October 2014 through September 2016 (5706 examinations of 4091 patients) or screening DBT from February 2017 through December 2018 (4440 examinations of 3647 patients). An institutional mammographic database was queried to obtain imaging type, breast density, history of mastectomy or lumpectomy, and BI-RADS category. An institutional breast cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Screening performance metrics were compared between FFDM and DBT groups. RESULTS. Recall rate was significantly lower with DBT than with FFDM (7.9% vs 10.1%; p < .001). DBT and FFDM did not differ in PPV1 (7.7% vs 6.1%; p = .36) or cancer detection rate (CDR) (6.1/1000 vs 6.0/1000; p = .97). Sensitivity was 96.4% for DBT and 71.4% for FFDM (p = .008). Specificity was 92.3% for DBT and 90.0% for FFDM (p < .001). With stratification by breast density, patients with nondense breast tissue had a lower recall rate with DBT than with FFDM (5.9% vs 8.8%; p < .001) and a nonsignificant increase in PPV1 (12.0% vs 6.4%; p = .05). The metrics were not otherwise different between DBT and FFDM among patients with nondense and those with dense breast tissue. Recall rates were lower with DBT than with FFDM among both patients who underwent mastectomy (7.8% vs 9.1%; p = .09) and those who underwent lumpectomy (7.9% vs 11.0%; p = .002). PPV1 and CDR were not different between DBT and FFDM among patients who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy. CONCLUSION. For patients with a personal history of breast cancer who have nondense breasts, the use of DBT as opposed to FFDM reduces recall rate and improves sensitivity and specificity. CDR and PPV1 remain unchanged. CLINICAL IMPACT. For women with a personal history of breast cancer and nondense breasts, DBT offers the potential to maintain the benefits of early cancer detection while reducing the potential harms of false-positive findings.

Ultrasound visibility of select breast biopsy markers for targeted axillary node localization following neoadjuvant treatment: simulation using animal tissue models.

PURPOSE: To compare ultrasound visibility of selected biopsy markers in animal tissue models simulating axillary echotexture. METHODS: Four breast biopsy markers were selected based on size, shape, and composition and compared to an institutional standard for testing in beef steak and pork loin phantoms. BD® UltraCor™ Twirl™; Hologic® Tumark® Professional series Q, Vision, and X; and BD® UltraClip™ Dual Trigger wing-shaped (institutional standard) biopsy markers were deployed at superficial (0-2.0 cm) and deep (2.1-4.0 cm) depths in the animal models. An animal model without a biopsy marker served as control. Four participating breast imagers blinded to marker shape and location assessed ultrasound visibility of each biopsy marker using a handheld 5-12 MHz linear array transducer with a 4-point grading system (0, not visible; 1, unsure if visible; 2, visible with difficulty; 3, definite visibility). Each breast imager was asked to select the three most easily visualized biopsy markers. RESULTS: Total visibility scores with the four-point grading system demonstrate highest score for the Twirl™ (48/48 points), followed by the Tumark® Q (42/48) and Tumark® Vision (41/48) biopsy markers. Overall individual accuracy scores across all biopsy marker types ranged from 83.3 to 95.8%. Visibility scores based on subjective radiologist assessment also demonstrate the highest vote for the Twirl™ (11), followed by the Tumark® Vision (7) and Tumark® Q (6) biopsy markers. The wing-shaped biopsy marker had the lowest visibility and voter score. CONCLUSION: The Twirl™ followed by the Tumark® Q and Vision biopsy markers demonstrates the highest visibility scores using a four-point grading system and by radiologist vote.

Nonmass Findings at Breast US: Definition, Classifications, and Differential Diagnosis.

A nonmass finding at US has been described as a discrete identifiable area of altered echotexture compared with that of the surrounding breast tissue that does not conform to a mass shape. Recognizing nonmass findings is important because breast cancer can manifest as such lesions, and US correlate findings for mammographic and breast MRI abnormalities may manifest as nonmass findings. The term nonmass finding is not part of the current Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System US terminology, and no standardized approach to classify and evaluate nonmass findings at US currently exists, despite the various classification systems proposed in the literature. There is also considerable overlap between the sonographic features of benign and malignant causes of nonmass findings. These limitations cause diagnostic difficulty in evaluating clinical significance and recommending appropriate management. The authors review the definitions and classification systems of US nonmass findings proposed in the literature and illustrate the sonographic features of nonmass findings to help radiologists identify them at US. A range of benign and malignant causes of nonmass findings are reviewed, and sonographic-histopathologic correlations of nonmass findings are discussed. Cases of breast MRI and mammographic findings that may manifest as US nonmass findings are presented. Radiologists can improve detection and interpretative accuracy, as well as correlation of mammographic and MRI breast lesions, by increasing their recognition and understanding of nonmass findings at US.©RSNA, 2020.