NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline's screening recommendations.

Developing Asymmetry at Mammography: Correlation with US and MR Imaging and Histopathologic Findings.

PURPOSE: To evaluate ultrasonographic (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings, histopathologic etiologies, and outcomes for developing asymmetry at mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, informed consent-waived, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective review of a mammography database for records from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012, 2354 consecutive diagnostic mammograms classified as showing focal asymmetry were identified. After patients with benign results, those considered stable, and those without prior mammograms were excluded, images from 521 studies were reviewed and 202 developing lesions were identified in 201 women. Patient demographics, US and MR imaging findings, and clinical and histopathologic outcomes were obtained from the electronic medical records. Equivocal US correlates of findings with developing asymmetry detected at mammography were excluded from statistical analysis. The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were performed and relative risk and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. RESULTS: Biopsy was performed in 73 (36%) of 201 patients with developing asymmetries, with 42 (58%) benign and 31 (42%) malignant results. Of 128 patients with nonbiopsied lesions, 110 (86%) were stable at 24 months (considered benign), 12 (9.4%) were stable at less than 24 months, and six (4.7%) were lost to follow-up. Diagnostic US was performed in 186 (93%) of 201 patients, 74 (40%) with correlates. US was performed in 30 (97%) of 31 patients with malignant developing asymmetries, 17 (57%) with correlates, and in 140 (92%) of 152 patients with benign lesions, 51 (36%) with correlates (risk ratio, 1.92; 95% CI: 1.001, 3.695; two-tailed P = .064, one-tailed P = .038). MR imaging was performed in 66 (33%) of 201 patients, 26 (39%) with correlates. MR imaging was performed in 10 (32%) of 31 patients with malignant developing asymmetries, all with correlates, and 53 (35%) of 152 patients with benign lesions, 15 (28%) with correlates (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Developing asymmetries were malignant in 15% (95% CI: 11%, 21.1%) of patients. Presence of a US or MR imaging correlate was predictive of malignancy.

Developing Asymmetries at Mammography: A Multimodality Approach to Assessment and Management.

A developing asymmetry is a focal asymmetry that is new or increased in conspicuity compared with the previous mammogram. It is challenging to evaluate, as it often looks similar to fibroglandular tissue at mammography. A developing asymmetry should be viewed with suspicion because it is an uncommon manifestation of breast cancer. Diagnostic mammography forms the foundation of diagnostic evaluation of a developing asymmetry and begins with additional spot compression, lateral, and/or rolled views to evaluate and localize it in three-dimensional space. Digital breast tomosynthesis can aid in evaluation by improving radiologists' sensitivity and specificity, as well as allowing localization of the lesion. Once the developing asymmetry has been fully characterized and localized with diagnostic mammography, targeted ultrasonography (US) should be performed to identify potentially benign causes of the developing asymmetry or identify a target for biopsy. However, lack of a US correlate should not preclude biopsy of a developing asymmetry. Diagnostic breast magnetic resonance imaging can be used in a minority of cases for problem solving or biopsy planning if no US correlate is identified and stereotactic biopsy is not feasible. The purpose of this article is to review the definition of developing asymmetry, describe the multimodality diagnostic tools available to the radiologist for evaluation of this challenging entity, and review the various causes, both benign and malignant.

Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods.

Breast density assessment is an important component of the screening mammography report and conveys information to referring clinicians about mammographic sensitivity and the relative risk for developing breast cancer. These topics have gained substantial attention because of recent legislation in several states that requires patients to be informed of dense breast tissue and the potential for associated breast cancer risk and decreased mammographic sensitivity. Because of the considerable implications of diagnosing a woman with dense breast tissue, radiologists should strive to be as consistent as possible when assessing breast density. Commonly used methods of breast density assessment range from subjective visual estimation to quantitative calculations of area and volume density percentages made with complex computer algorithms. The basic principles of currently available commercial methods of calculating fibroglandular density are described and illustrated. There is no criterion standard for determining breast density, but understanding the pros and cons of the various assessment methods will allow radiologists to make informed decisions. Radiologists should understand the basic factors involved in breast density assessment, the changes related to density assessment described in the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon, and the capabilities of currently available software. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Cloacal malformation: embryology, anatomy, and prenatal imaging features.

Cloacal malformation is a rare but important anomaly. Prenatal diagnosis is possible with knowledge of the distinctive imaging features. The purpose of this case series is to illustrate characteristic prenatal sonographic and magnetic resonance imaging features of cloacal malformation using imaging from 6 cases seen at a single academic center to augment published data. The imaging feature common to all cases was a central cystic pelvic mass containing a characteristic fluid-fluid level. Additional anomalies include uterine and vaginal duplication, hydronephrosis, and lumbosacral anomalies. Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging showed the absence of the normal T1-hyperintense meconium-filled rectum in all cases. Prenatal diagnosis may affect immediate neonatal care (eg, immediate drainage of hydrocolpos) with an ultimate improved outcome.

Autologous Fat Grafting to the Breast: An Educational Review.

Autologous fat grafting (AFG) is a technique that is increasingly utilized in breast cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. In this procedure, fat is aspirated by liposuction from one area of the body and injected into the breast. The procedure and process of AFG has evolved over the last few decades, leading to more widespread use, though there is no standard method. Autologous fat grafting is generally considered a safe procedure but may result in higher utilization of diagnostic imaging due to development of palpable lumps related to fat necrosis. Imaging findings depend on surgical technique but typically include bilateral, symmetric, retromammary oil cysts and scattered dystrophic and/or coarse calcifications when AFG is used for primary breast augmentation. More focal findings occur when AFG is used to improve specific areas of cosmetic deformity, scarring, or pain following breast cancer surgery. As with any cause of fat necrosis, imaging features tend to appear more benign over time, with development of rim calcifications associated with oil cysts and a shift in echogenicity of oil cyst contents on ultrasound towards anechoic in some cases. This article reviews the AFG procedure, uses, complications, and imaging findings.

Ultrasound Guided Core Breast Biopsies.

Core needle biopsies are common procedures performed in breast imaging centers. Utilizing ultrasound guidance for biopsy of suspicious findings within the breast and axilla is the standard of care when lesions are visible on ultrasound. Most ultrasound guided breast biopsies are performed by radiologists interpreting breast imaging who correlate findings across modalities including mammography, ultrasound and breast MRI, however interventional radiologists may perform in some practice settings. Appropriate knowledge of complete breast imaging is important not only for localization, but for determining radiologic-pathologic concordance. Proper localization, technique, and post biopsy management are essential to the success of the procedure and providing proper care for patients. This article discusses indications, strategies for accurate targeting, how-to biopsy techniques, post biopsy considerations and radiologic-pathologic concordance incorporating recommendations from the American College of Radiology Practice Parameter for the Performance of Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Breast Interventional procedures.

Impact of Immediate Interpretation of Screening Tomosynthesis Mammography on Performance Metrics.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare performance metrics for immediate and delayed batch interpretation of screening tomosynthesis mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA compliant study was approved by institutional review board with a waiver of consent. A retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics for tomosynthesis mammograms interpreted in 2015 when mammograms were read immediately was compared to historical controls from 2013 to 2014 when mammograms were batch interpreted after the patient had departed. A total of 5518 screening tomosynthesis mammograms (n = 1212 for batch interpretation and n = 4306 for immediate interpretation) were evaluated. The larger sample size for the latter group reflects a group practice shift to performing tomosynthesis for the majority of patients. Age, breast density, comparison examinations, and high-risk status were compared. An asymptotic proportion test and multivariable analysis were used to compare performance metrics. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in recall or cancer detection rates for the batch interpretation group compared to immediate interpretation group with respective recall rate of 6.5% vs 5.3% = +1.2% (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 2.7%; P = .101) and cancer detection rate of 6.6 vs 7.2 per thousand = -0.6 (95% confidence interval -5.9 to 4.6; P = .825). There was no statistically significant difference in positive predictive values (PPVs) including PPV1 (screening recall), PPV2 (biopsy recommendation), or PPV 3 (biopsy performed) with batch interpretation (10.1%, 42.1%, and 40.0%, respectively) and immediate interpretation (13.6%, 39.2%, and 39.7%, respectively). After adjusting for age, breast density, high-risk status, and comparison mammogram, there was no difference in the odds of being recalled or cancer detection between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is no statistically significant difference in interpretation performance metrics for screening tomosynthesis mammograms interpreted immediately compared to those interpreted in a delayed fashion.

Effect of Training on Qualitative Mammographic Density Assessment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of visual mammographic breast density assessment and determine if training can improve this assessment, to compare the accuracy of qualitative density assessment before and after training with a quantitative assessment tool, and to evaluate agreement between qualitative and quantitative density assessment methods. METHODS: Consecutive screening mammograms performed over a 4-month period were visually assessed by two study breast radiologists (the leads), who selected 200 cases equally distributed among the four BI-RADS density categories. These 200 cases were shown to 20 other breast radiologists (the readers) before and after viewing a training module on visual density assessment. Agreement between reader assessment and lead radiologist assessment was calculated for both reading sessions. Quantitative volumetric density of the 200 mammograms, determined using a commercially available tool, was compared with both sets of reader assessment and with lead radiologist assessment. RESULTS: Compared with lead radiologist assessment, reader accuracy of breast density assessment increased from 65% before training to 72% after training (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .0001). Training specifically improved assignment to BI-RADS categories 1 (P < .0001) and 4 (P < .10). Compared with quantitative assessment, reader accuracy showed statistically nonsignificant improvement with training (odds ratio, 1.1; P = .26). Substantial agreement between qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment was demonstrated (κ = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Training may improve the accuracy of mammographic breast density assessment. Substantial agreement between qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment exists.