RESUMEN
Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. Patients with dense breast tissue are more likely to present with interval cancers and higher-stage disease. Successful breast cancer screening outcomes rely on detection of early-stage breast cancers; therefore, several supplemental screening modalities have been developed to improve cancer detection in dense breast tissue. US is the most widely used supplemental screening modality worldwide and has been proven to demonstrate additional mammographically occult cancers that are predominantly invasive and node negative. According to the American College of Radiology, intermediate-risk women with dense breast tissue may benefit from adjunctive screening US due to the limitations of mammography. Several studies have demonstrated handheld US (HHUS) and automated breast US (AUS) to be comparable in the screening setting. The advantages of AUS over HHUS include lack of operator dependence and a formal training requirement, image reproducibility, and ability for temporal comparison. However, AUS exhibits unique features that can result in high false-positive rates and long interpretation times for new users. Familiarity with the common appearance of benign mammographic findings and artifacts, technical challenges, and unique AUS features is essential for fast, efficient, and accurate interpretation. The goals of this article are to (a) examine the role of AUS as a supplemental screening modality and (b) review the pearls and pitfalls of AUS interpretation. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Mamografía/métodos , Densidad de la Mama , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Ultrasonografía Mamaria/métodos , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of alcohol sclerotherapy in postoperative breast and axillary seromas. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of consecutive patients from 2017 to 2021. The procedure involves aspiration of seroma fluid, injection of ethanol for 15 to 30 minutes, and then aspiration of the injected ethanol. Following review of the medical record, patient and procedure data were recorded. Success was defined as no recurrence of seroma. Statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square or t-test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty seromas were treated in 19 patients (mean age, 63 years; range, 49-79) following mastectomy (9/20, 45%), lumpectomy (25%, 5/20), axillary nodal dissection (5/20, 25%), or chest wall surgery (1/20, 5%). The mean seroma volume was 146â ±â 165 mL. There was a mean of 1.4 prior aspiration attempts (range, 0-3). Mean injected ethanol volume was 39 mL (range, 8-60 mL) for a mean of 26â ±â 5 minutes. Seromas recurred in 85% (17/20) of cases, and repeat aspiration was performed in 35% (6/17). The mean recurrence time was 34â ±â 29 days. The recurrent seromas were 31% smaller (mean, 80â ±â 48 mL). Only a smaller pre-ablation seroma was associated with successful ablation (Pâ <â 0.01), as the mean pre-ablation volume was 36 ± 24 mL for successful ablations and 119â ±â 56 mL for unsuccessful ablations. There were no post-procedural complications. CONCLUSION: Single-treatment ethanol sclerotherapy is typically unsuccessful in ablating breast and axillary seromas. Only a smaller pre-ablation seroma size was associated with successful ablation.