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.

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.

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.

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.

Patient Experience Scores for Radiologists: Comparison With Nonradiologist Physicians and Changes After Public Posting in an Institutional Online Provider Directory.

BACKGROUND. Patients are increasingly using online information regarding patient experiences to guide care decisions. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare patient experience scores between radiologists and nonradiologist physicians and to assess changes in scores after their public posting in an online physician directory. METHODS. This retrospective study included data collected from May 1, 2017, to November 30, 2018, at a single large academic medical center. After all institutional outpatient visits, patients were e-mailed the Press Ganey Medical Practice Survey, which included 10 questions (answered using a Likert scale and converted to 100-point range) relating to the patient's experience with the specific provider for the encounter. Surveys were distributed to patients after radiology encounters if involving an image-guided invasive procedure. Mean scores for each question and the mean weighted overall score were displayed on each physician's publicly available profile on the hospital's online physician directory and were updated monthly. Scores were compared between radiologists and nonradiologist physicians; temporal changes were assessed. RESULTS. The response rate was 18.0% (96,057/533,983). After exclusions (23,989 surveys completed without provider ratings; 183 surveys evaluating physician assistants), 71,885 physician surveys were evaluated: 2703 surveys for 65 radiologists, 49,403 surveys for 916 physicians in 17 nonsurgical specialties, and 19,779 surveys for 262 physicians in 13 surgical specialties. Over the study period, the mean overall score was 95.6 for radiologists and 95.9 for nonradiologists (94.6 for surgical specialties, 96.4 for nonsurgical specialties). For the 10 individual questions, scores ranged for radiologists from 94.6 (time spent with patient) to 96.8 (friendliness/courtesy) and for nonradiologists from 94.6 (time spent with patient) to 97.0 (friendliness/courtesy). The mean overall score increased from the first month to the final month for radiologists from 94.2 to 97.1 and for nonradiologists from 95.7 to 96.3. For radiologists, the largest improvement was for instructions regarding postprocedure follow-up care (increased from 91.4 to 97.4). CONCLUSION. Radiologists received high scores on patient experience surveys when evaluated on encounters involving invasive procedures, achieving scores similar to those for other physicians. Scores improved over time, possibly related to online posting of survey results. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support the utility of implementing patient experience surveys in radiology.

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.

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.

Comparing Tumor Characteristics and Rates of Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs), tumor types, and characteristics between screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a matched patient population in a large academic breast imaging practice with mixed DBT and FFDM technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective study, we reviewed consecutive screening FFDM and DBT examinations performed between October 2012 and September 2014. To control for nonrandomized selection of FFDM versus DBT examinations, we applied propensity score matching on the basis of patient age, imaging site, and prior imaging findings. An institutional breast cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. CDR and tumor type, grade, receptor, nodal status, and size were compared between matched FFDM and DBT groups. RESULTS. Sixty-one cancers were detected in the matched screening cohort of DBT (n = 9817) and FFDM (n = 14,180) examinations. CDR was higher with DBT than with FFDM for invasive cancers (2.8 vs 1.3, p = 0.01), minimal cancers (2.4 vs 1.2, p = 0.03), estrogen receptor-positive invasive cancers (2.6 vs 1.1, p = 0.01), and node-negative invasive cancers (2.3 vs 1.1, p = 0.02.), respectively. The ratio of screen-detected invasive cancers to ductal carcinoma in situ on DBT (3.0) was not significantly different from that on FFDM (2.6) (p = 0.79). CONCLUSION. DBT results in an overall increase in CDR irrespective of the tumor type, size, or grade of cancer.

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.

Hyperechoic malignancies of the breast: Underlying pathologic features correlating with this unusual appearance on ultrasound.

Hyperechogenicity in the breast on ultrasound (US) is usually regarded as a benign feature with only rare hyperechoic malignancies reported to date. In this study, we evaluated the pathologic findings on core needle biopsy of hyperechoic lesions and investigated the histologic features in malignancies that give rise to an echogenic pattern. A total of 163 core needle biopsies (CNB) were performed for "hyperechoic" or "echogenic" lesions between 1/1/05 and 7/31/17. Lesions were classified based on the proportion of hyperechoic areas identified. We found that all lesions with a homogenous hyperechoic pattern (>90% hyperechoic) were benign (n = 17), regardless of the type of margins. Malignancies were found in 21% (7/34, six invasive carcinomas and one lymphoma) of heterogenous lesions with ≥50% hyperechoic areas (all with noncircumscribed margins) and in 31% of lesions with <50% hyperechoic areas (19/61, 14 invasive carcinomas, two lymphomas, and three metastases), including five with circumscribed margins (one invasive carcinoma, one lymphoma, and three metastases). Two major US patterns were identified in malignant lesions, those with a hypoechoic center and hyperechoic rim, corresponding to a central tumor area with dense stroma and tumor cells infiltrating adipose tissue at the periphery ("rim pattern"), and a second "dispersed pattern" with hyperechoic areas distributed throughout the lesion. Hyperechoic malignancies were found to be comprised of a complex intermixture of elements of differing echogenicity including tumor cells, adipose tissue, and fluid (in tubules, stromal clefts, or blood vessels). Our findings support the importance of radiologists specifying the echogenic pattern of hyperechoic lesions, as heterogenous lesions are associated with a higher risk of malignancy and pathologists should be alert to the associated pathologic findings.

Evaluating the Rate of Upgrade to Invasive Breast Cancer and/or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Following a Core Biopsy Diagnosis of Non-classic Lobular Carcinoma In Situ.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of non-classic lobular carcinoma in situ (NC-LCIS) encompasses a variety of lesions with poorly characterized natural history. We evaluated upgrade rates and factors associated with upgrade to malignancy following a core biopsy diagnosis of NC-LCIS, and its natural history. METHODS: Upon Institutional Review Board approval, pathology databases were searched for NC-LCIS core biopsy diagnoses (carcinoma in situ [CIS], CIS with ductal and lobular features [CIS/DLF], pleomorphic LCIS [P-LCIS], variant LCIS [V-LCIS], LCIS with necrosis). Cases with available core and excision pathology were included, while cases with concurrent ipsilateral invasive carcinoma (IC), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and/or atypical ductal hyperplasia were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 121 NC-LCIS cases were identified from 1998 to 2017. We excluded 46 cases with concurrent cancer; 75 patients with 76 NC-LCIS core biopsy diagnoses followed by excision formed our study cohort. Median age was 56 years (range 41-83), and all imaging findings were classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4; calcifications were the most common biopsy indication (80%). Excision yielded malignancy in 27 (36%) patients (IC 17, 63%; DCIS alone 10, 37%). We were unable to identify radiologic or pathologic features predictive of upgrade. Of 49 pure NC-LCIS cases, 15 (31%) had mastectomy, 9 (18%) had excision and radiation, and 25 (51%) had excision alone. At a median follow-up of 58 months (range 1-224), 1/25 (4%) patients with excision alone developed ipsilateral DCIS 14 months later. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of NC-LCIS, 36% of cases were upgraded, supporting routine excision. We were unable to identify predictors of upgrade. Among 25 patients with pure NC-LCIS, only one patient developed a future ipsilateral cancer. Further study of the natural history of NC-LCIS is warranted.

Randomized Trial of Personalized Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk Notification.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification laws, the impact of these laws on knowledge of MBD and knowledge of breast cancer risk is limited by the lack of tools to promote informed decision-making in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate whether brief, personalized informational videos following a normal mammogram in addition to a legislatively required letter about MBD result can improve knowledge of MBD and breast cancer risk compared to standard care (i.e., legislatively required letter about MBD included with the mammogram result). DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Prospective randomized controlled trial of English-speaking women, age 40-74 years, without prior history of breast cancer, receiving a screening mammogram with a normal or benign finding (intervention group n = 235, control group n = 224). INTERVENTION: brief (3-5 min) video, personalized to a woman's MBD result and breast cancer risk. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were a woman's knowledge of her MBD and risk of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included whether a woman reported that she discussed the results of her mammogram with her primary care provider (PCP). KEY RESULTS: Relative to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had greater improvement in their knowledge of both their personal MBD (intervention pre/post 39.2%/ 77.5%; control pre/post 36.2%/ 37.5%; odds ratio (OR) 5.34 for change for intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87-7.36; p < 0.001) and risk of breast cancer (intervention pre/post: 66.8%/74.0%; control pre/post 67.9%/ 65.2%; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84; p = 0.01). Women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report discussing the results of their mammogram with their PCP (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Brief, personalized videos following mammography can improve knowledge of MBD and personal risk of breast cancer compared to a legislatively mandated informational letter. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02986360).

Impact of an Information Technology-Enabled Quality Improvement Initiative on Timeliness of Patient Contact and Scheduling of Screening Mammography Recall.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an information technology-enabled quality improvement initiative on timeliness of patient contact and scheduling of screening mammography recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study was conducted in a screening practice (two ambulatory centers, A and B; two hospitals, C and D) that uses offline batch results (A, B, C) and same-day results (D) with on-site (A, C, D) or off-site (B) coordinators scheduling recalls. Before the intervention, radiologists at sites A, B, and C conveyed recalls via paper lists to coordinators after batch interpretation. At site D, coordinators received recall lists several times a day. In March 2017 an electronic alert system was implemented to notify coordinators of recall at report signing with required closed-loop acknowledgment once recall was scheduled. Mean time (hours, excluding weekends) to schedule diagnostic evaluation was compared for 4-month periods before and after intervention by two-tailed t test and statistical process control analyses. RESULTS. Recall rates were 9.5% (1356/14,315) before and 8.9% (1432/16,034) after the intervention (p = 0.10). Mean time to schedule screening decreased after the intervention as follows: site A from 86 to 65 hours (-24.4%, p = 0.01); site B, 116 to 70 hours (-39.7%, p < 0.0001); site C, 98 to 65 hours (-33.7%, p = 0.002); and site D, 49 to 42 hours (-14.3%, p = 0.21). Statistical process control analysis showed significant sustained improvements at sites A, B, and C in mean time to patient contact and scheduling of diagnostic evaluation. CONCLUSION. An information technology-enabled quality improvement initiative to notify coordinators of screening recalls in real time with required patient contact and scheduling acknowledgment reduced time to diagnostic scheduling in a multisite practice. The greatest impact was found at the site with off-site coordinators, the least at the site performing same-day interpretation.

Screening breast MRI in patients with history of atypia or lobular neoplasia.

Our goal was to determine outcomes of screening breast MRI in patients with prior history of atypia or lobular neoplasia (LN). Review of the MRI data base revealed 264/7482 (3.5%) screening MRIs in 145 patients with history of atypia or LN. Overall, 39/264 (14.7%) received an abnormal interpretation, with 7.2% BI-RADS 4 and 5 (19/264) and 7.6% BI-RADS 3 (20/264). PPV1 was 38.4% (six cancers in 39 BI-RADS 3, 4, 5); PPV3 was 28.5% (six cancers in 21 biopsies). Screening breast MRI use in this population is low (3.5%), although PPVs are comparable to other high-risk groups for which breast MRI is recommended.

Predictors of surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify predictors of poor mammography surveillance outcomes based on clinico-pathologic features. METHODS: This study was HIPAA compliant and IRB approved. We performed an electronic medical record review for a cohort of women with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage I or II invasive breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy who developed subsequent in-breast treatment recurrence (IBTR) or contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Poor surveillance outcome was defined as second breast cancer not detected by surveillance mammography, including interval cancers (diagnosed within 365 days of surveillance mammogram with negative results) and clinically detected cancers (diagnosed without a surveillance mammogram in the preceding 365 days). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify predictors of poor mammography surveillance outcome, including patient and primary tumor characteristics, breast density, mode of primary tumor detection, and time to second cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: 164 women met inclusion criteria (65 with IBTR, 99 with CBC); 124 had screen-detected second cancers. On univariate analysis, poor surveillance outcome (n = 40) was associated with age at primary cancer diagnosis < 50 years (p < 0.0001), AJCC stage II primary cancers (p = 0.007), and heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, age < 50 years at primary breast cancer diagnosis remained a significant predictor of poor surveillance outcome (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Women younger than age 50 at primary breast cancer diagnosis are at risk of poor surveillance mammography outcomes, and may be appropriate candidates for more intensive clinical and imaging surveillance.

Ultrasound Features of Mammographic Developing Asymmetries and Correlation With Histopathologic Findings.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to review the ultrasound (US) features of developing asymmetries and correlate them with histopathologic findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the mammography database of an academic medical center, affiliated cancer center, and two ambulatory imaging facilities from 2009 to 2012 and identified 201 patients with developing asymmetries, 187 of whom had US at the time of, or within 1 month of, diagnostic mammography evaluation. Seventy-five (40.1%) of these 187 patients had a US correlate, and three additional patients had a positive second-look US after MRI (US results were initially negative), and one patient had a US correlate for a newly palpable developing asymmetry 1 month after receiving a BI-RADS category 3 mammography-only assessment. These 78 developing asymmetries with US correlates comprised the study cases. US features were obtained by consensus image review; patient demographic characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 78 US correlates (46.2%) were masses, the echotexture of which was as follows: 26 (72.2%) were hypoechoic, four (11.1%) were hyperechoic, three (8.3%) were mixed hyperechoic and hypoechoic, and three (8.3%) were anechoic. Forty-two of 78 US correlates (53.8%) were nonmass findings, the echotexture of which was as follows: 24 (57.1%) were mixed hyperechoic and hypoechoic, 13 (31.0%) were hypoechoic, and five (11.9%) were hyperechoic. Twenty-one of 78 lesions (26.9%) were malignant; of these, eight were invasive ductal carcinoma, seven were invasive lobular carcinoma, three were mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma, and three were ductal carcinoma in situ. Malignant findings on US included 17 masses (81.0%) (13 hypoechoic and four mixed hyperechoic and hypoechoic), and four nonmass findings (19.0%) (three mixed hyperechoic and hypoechoic and one hypoechoic). CONCLUSION: When present, US correlates for developing asymmetries are often nonmass findings with mixed echotexture. Most malignant developing asymmetries with US correlates present as a hypoechoic mass, but 19% present as a nonmass finding with either mixed hyperechoic and hypoechoic echotexture or hypoechoic echotexture.

Computer-aided heterogeneity analysis in breast MR imaging assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ: Correlating histologic grade and receptor status.

PURPOSE: To identify breast MR imaging biomarkers to predict histologic grade and receptor status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived in this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant Institutional Review Board-approved study. Case inclusion was conducted from 7332 consecutive breast MR studies from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012. Excluding studies with benign diagnoses, studies without visible abnormal enhancement, and pathology containing invasive disease yielded 55 MR-imaged pathology-proven DCIS seen on 54 studies. Twenty-eight studies (52%) were performed at 1.5 Tesla (T); 26 (48%) at 3T. Regions-of-interest representing DCIS were segmented for precontrast, first and fourth postcontrast, and subtracted first and fourth postcontrast images on the open-source three-dimensional (3D) Slicer software. Fifty-seven metrics of each DCIS were obtained, including distribution statistics, shape, morphology, Renyi dimensions, geometrical measure, and texture, using the 3D Slicer HeterogeneityCAD module. Statistical correlation of heterogeneity metrics with DCIS grade and receptor status was performed using univariate Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 55 DCIS (44%) were high nuclear grade (HNG); 44 (80%) were estrogen receptor (ER) positive. Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) was amplified in 10/55 (18%), nonamplified in 34/55 (62%), unknown/equivocal in 8/55 (15%). Surface area-to-volume ratio showed significant difference (P < 0.05) between HNG and non-HNG DCIS. No metric differentiated ER status (0.113 < p ≤ 1.000). Seventeen metrics showed significant differences between HER2-positive and HER2-negative DCIS (0.016 < P < 0.050). CONCLUSION: Quantitative heterogeneity analysis of DCIS suggests the presence of MR imaging biomarkers in classifying DCIS grade and HER2 status. Validation with larger samples and prospective studies is needed to translate these results into clinical applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1748-1759.

Revisiting Nonmass Enhancement in Breast MRI: Analysis of Outcomes and Follow-Up Using the Updated BI-RADS Atlas.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency of reclassification of nonmass enhancement (NME) as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and to determine positive predictive values (PPVs) of NME descriptors using the revised BI-RADS atlas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's MRI database from January 1, 2009, through March 30, 2012, identified 6220 contrast-enhanced breast MRI examinations. All findings prospectively assessed as NME and rated as BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5 (n = 386) were rereviewed in consensus by two radiologists who were blinded to pathologic findings with the fifth edition of the BI-RADS lexicon. Findings considered as postsurgical, associated with known cancers, NME given a BI-RADS category 3 assessment before 2009, previously biopsied, and those reclassified as BPE, focus, or mass were excluded (n = 181). Medical records were reviewed for demographics and outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred five women were included (mean age, 48.8 years; range, 21-84 years). Seventy-seven of 386 findings (20.0%) were reclassified as BPE, and patients with BPE were younger than those with NME (mean age, 43.9 years; range, 31-62 years) (p = 0.003). Pathology results for 144 of 205 (70.2%) patients included 52 malignant, 11 high-risk, and 81 benign lesions. The highest PPVs for distribution patterns were 34.5% (10/29) for segmental and 100.0% (3/3) for diffuse distribution. The highest PPVs for internal enhancement patterns were 36.7% (11/30) for clustered ring enhancement and 27.5% (11/40) for clumped enhancement. No difference for NME malignancy rate was noted according to BPE (10/52 [19.2%] marked or moderate; 42/153 [27.5%] mild or minimal, p = 0.24). Thirty-two percent (17/52) of malignant NMEs had high T2 signal. CONCLUSION: Careful assessment of findings as BPE versus NME can improve PPVs, particularly in younger women. Although clustered ring enhancement had one of the study's highest PPVs, this number falls below previously published rates. Reliance on T2 signal as a benign feature may be misleading, because one-third of malignancies had T2 signal.