Outcomes of male patients attending the symptomatic breast unit: adherence to local and national imaging guidelines and effectiveness of clinical examination and imaging in detecting male breast cancer.

AIM: To review outcomes of male patients attending the breast unit, evaluate effectiveness of imaging and examination in detecting breast cancer and review adherence to guidelines for male breast imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of male patients attending Cambridge Breast Unit from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019. Patient electronic records and imaging were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical findings, imaging, biopsy, and pathology outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,362 male patients attending the breast unit, 1,028 (75%) had imaging performed. Biopsy was performed in 41 men (3%), with 14 cancers diagnosed (1%). Clinical examination showed 42.7% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 54.6% positive predictive value (PPV) and 99.4% negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of cancer. Mammogram demonstrated 84.6% sensitivity, 99.4% specificity, 69.8% PPV, and 99.8% NPV for detection of malignancy. Ultrasound demonstrated 78.6% sensitivity, 98.9% specificity, 73.3% PPV and 99.2% NPV for detection of cancer. Forty-one percent of patients <40 years and 51% < 50 years were imaged, who according to local and Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines did not require imaging based on age and clinical score. CONCLUSION: Male patients account for a small proportion of referrals to the breast unit but generate significant workload. Imaging protocols, incorporating clinical score and age cut-off at 40 years remains robust for detecting malignancy. Clinician awareness of the imaging protocol, and close liaison with radiologists is essential to minimise additional radiology workload.

An analysis of screen-detected invasive cancers by grade in the English breast cancer screening programme: are we failing to detect sufficient small grade 3 cancers?

OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trials have shown a reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening and it is the detection of high-grade invasive cancers that is responsible for much of this effect. We determined the detection rates of invasive cancers by grade, size and type of screen and estimated relative sensitivities with emphasis on grade 3 detection. METHODS: This observational study analysed data from over 11 million screening episodes (67,681 invasive cancers) from the English NHS breast screening programme over seven screening years 2009/2010 to 2015/2016 for women aged 45-70. RESULTS: At prevalent (first) screens (which are unaffected by screening interval), the detection rate of small (< 15 mm) invasive cancers was 0.95 per 1000 for grade 1, but for grade 3 only 0.30 per 1000. The ratio of small (< 15 mm) to large (≥ 15 mm) cancers was 1.8:1 for grade 1 but reversed to 0.5:1 for grade 3. We estimated that the relative sensitivity for grade 3 invasive cancers was 52% of that for grade 1 and the relative sensitivity for small (< 15 mm) grade 3 only 26% of that for small (< 15 mm) grade 1 invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity for small grade 3 invasive cancers is poor compared with that for grade 1 and 2 invasive cancers and larger grade 3 malignancies. This observation is likely a limitation of the current technology related to the absence of identifiable mammographic features for small high-grade cancers. Future work should focus on technologies and strategies to improve detection of these clinically most significant cancers. KEY POINTS: • The detection of small high-grade invasive cancers is vital to reduce breast cancer mortality. • We estimate the sensitivity for small grade 3 invasive cancers may be only 26% of that of small grade 1 invasive cancers. This is likely to be associated with the non-specific mammographic features for these cancers. • New technologies and appropriate strategies using current technology are required to maximise the detection of small grade 3 invasive cancers.

Correction to: An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

The original version of this article, published on 04 February 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake.

An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: To develop methods to model the relationship between cancer detection and recall rates to inform professional standards. METHODS: Annual screening programme information for each of the 80 English NHSBSP units (totalling 11.3 million screening tests) for the seven screening years from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2016 and some Dutch screening programme information were used to produce linear and non-linear models. The non-linear models estimated the modelled maximum values (MMV) for cancers detected at different grades and estimated how rapidly the MMV was reached (the modelled 'slope' (MS)). Main outcomes include the detection rate for combined invasive/micro-invasive and high-grade DCIS (IHG) detection rate and the low/intermediate grade DCIS (LIG) detection rate. RESULTS: At prevalent screens for IHG cancers, 99% of the MMV was reached at a recall rate of 7.0%. The LIG detection rate had no discernible plateau, increasing linearly at a rate of 0.12 per 1000 for every 1% increase in recall rate. At incident screens, 99% of the MMV for IHG cancer detection was 4.0%. LIG DCIS increased linearly at a rate of 0.18 per 1000 per 1% increase in recall rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our models demonstrate the diminishing returns associated with increasing recall rates. The screening programme in England could use the models to set recall rate ranges, and other countries could explore similar methodology. KEY POINTS: • Question: How can we determine optimum recall rates in breast cancer screening? • Findings: In this large observational study, we show that increases in recall rates above defined levels are almost exclusively associated with false positive recalls and a very small increase in low/intermediate grade DCIS. • Meaning: High recall rates are not associated with increases in detection of life-threatening cancers. The models developed in this paper can be used to help set recall rate ranges that maximise benefit and minimise harm.

An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between needle biopsy rates and cancer detection rates in the English NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

AIM: To examine the association between recall, needle biopsy, and cancer detection rates to inform the setting of target ranges to optimise the benefit to harm ratio of breast screening programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annual screening programme information from 2009/10 to 2015/16 for the 80 screening units of the English National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (totalling 11.3 million screening tests) was obtained from annual (KC62) returns. Linear regression models were used to examine the association between needle biopsy rates and recall rates and non-linear regression models to examine the association between cancer detection rates and needle biopsy rates. RESULTS: The models show and quantify the diminishing returns for prevalent screens with increasing biopsy rates. A biopsy rate increase from 10 to 20 per 1,000 increases the cancer detection rate by 2.13 per 1,000 with four extra biopsies per extra cancer detected. Increasing the biopsy rate from 40 to 50 per 1,000, increases the cancer detection rate by only 0.25 per 1,000, with 40 extra biopsies per extra cancer detected. Although diminishing returns are also seen at incident screens, screening is generally more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing needle biopsy rates leads to rapidly diminishing returns in cancer detection and a marked increase in non-malignant/benign needle biopsies. Much of the harms associated with screening in terms of false-positive recall rates and non-cancer biopsies occur at prevalent screens with much lower rates at incident screens. Needle biopsy rate targets should be considered together with recall rate targets to maximise benefit and minimise harm.

Evidence for avoiding the biopsy of typical fibroadenomas in women aged 25-29 years.

AIM: To determine if any malignancies would have been missed in women aged 25-29 years in the absence of needle biopsy of sonographically typical fibroadenomas, and to present a non-biopsy protocol for fibroadenomas in this age group using strict criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women aged 25-29 years undergoing needle biopsies in three centres over a collective 16-year period were identified. Imaging, clinical information, needle biopsy, and surgical histopathology results were obtained from hospital medical records at each centre. RESULTS: Between January 2001 and December 2016, 885 women aged 25-29 years underwent core biopsy. Of 595 sonographically typical fibroadenomas, 549 were histologically confirmed fibroadenomas, 46 were other benign entities, none were cancers. All cancers were scored as indeterminate or suspicious on ultrasound. With a non-biopsy protocol in clinical practice in Centre A, between 2009 and 2018, 259 sonographically typical fibroadenomas met criteria for non-biopsy, and to date, no cancers have been missed. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for safe non-biopsy of typical fibroadenomas in women aged 25-29 years when the clinical and sonographic presentations meet strict criteria. A protocol for non-biopsy to include this age group is suggested on incorporation of these results into existing guidance for managing younger women.

How do we manage overdiagnosis/overtreatment in breast screening?

Overdiagnosis is the inevitable flip side of early detection resulting in unnecessary labelling of well women with a diagnosis of cancer and possible unnecessary treatment. Overdiagnosis occurs because breast cancers have different rates of growth and slow-growing cancers are preferentially detected by screening. Some of these slow-growing screen-detected cancers may never have been clinically apparent during an individual's lifetime. Evaluating the benefits and risks of screening are complex, but this has been performed for the UK population by an independent review led by Professor Marmot. It might be possible to limit overdiagnosis by identifying women with "low-risk disease" earlier, either at the point of screening when additional investigations could be delayed (possibly for ever) so that they are not subjected to additional diagnostic tests, or at the point of diagnosis. Both these options would require major re-education of clinicians and the public who would need to accept that screening is "deliberately ignoring a cancer". There is a long surgical history of reducing the burden of treatment, which continues today with trials of management of the axilla and reducing or even omitting radiotherapy for low-risk disease. The Low Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ trial (LORIS) has started to identify a group of breast cancer patients who could avoid surgery and be offered active monitoring. We need to consider planning a similar trial for low-risk invasive breast cancer.

Does preoperative axillary staging lead to overtreatment of women with screen-detected breast cancer?

AIM: To determine the impact of preoperative axillary ultrasound staging in a screen-detected breast cancer population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ultrasound and needle biopsy staging results alongside reference standard sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection were extracted retrospectively from the unit's computer records between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2015. Axillary staging was compared with final histopathology and treatment. RESULTS: Of the 215,661 screening examinations performed, 780 invasive cancers were diagnosed, which had preoperative axillary staging data, of which 162 (20.7%) were node positive. Thirty-six (4.6%) had a heavy nodal burden (three or more nodes). Ninety (11.5%) had an abnormal axillary ultrasound and axillary biopsy of which 54 were positive for cancer (33.3% of the node positive cases) and triaged to axillary lymph node dissection avoiding a sentinel lymph node biopsy. Of these 22 (40.7%) had neoadjuvant treatment, and 32 (59.3%) proceeded directly to axillary lymph node dissection. The sensitivity of axillary ultrasound and biopsy to detect women with a heavy nodal burden (three or more nodes) was 41.7% (15 of 36); however, 17 (53%) of the 32 women with a positive axillary biopsy had a low burden of axillary disease (two or fewer positive nodes) at axillary lymph node dissection, the mean number of nodes obtained was 14.6. CONCLUSION: Significant numbers of women are being potentially overtreated or denied entry into positive sentinel node: adjuvant therapy only versus adjuvant therapy and clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) because of routine preoperative axillary staging.

Axillary tumour burden in women with one abnormal node on ultrasound compared to women with multiple abnormal nodes.

AIM: To determine if the number of abnormal nodes seen on preoperative axillary ultrasound (AUS) is a predictor of the number of positive nodes at histology for women with needle-biopsy-proven positive nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients with early breast cancer who had needle-biopsy-proven positive nodes on AUS and underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) between October 2015 and July 2016. The number of abnormal nodes at preoperative AUS was recorded by breast radiologists or radiographers. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients were included in the study. The median age of the women was 62 (range 30-93) years. Fifty-four of the 123 (44%) women had one abnormal node, whereas 69 (56%) had multiple abnormal nodes on AUS. Forty of the 123 (33%) women had two or fewer nodes with metastases at histology after ALND. Tumours ≤20 mm (p<0.001) and one abnormal node on AUS (p<0.001) were associated with two or fewer nodes with metastases at ALND. Both remained significant in logistic regression analysis. The likelihood of at least three metastases based on the combination of these two factors had 95% sensitivity (79 of 83), 35% specificity (14 of 40), a negative predictive value of 78% (14 of 18), and a positive predictive value of 75% (79 of 105). CONCLUSION: Among women with needle-biopsy-proven positive nodes, around three in four women (78%) with an invasive tumour ≤2 cm and one abnormal node on AUS have two or fewer positive nodes at ALND. These women are overtreated by upfront ALND and can be offered sentinel node biopsy (SNB).

Image processing can cause some malignant soft-tissue lesions to be missed in digital mammography images.

AIM: To investigate the effect of image processing on cancer detection in mammography. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An observer study was performed using 349 digital mammography images of women with normal breasts, calcification clusters, or soft-tissue lesions including 191 subtle cancers. Images underwent two types of processing: FlavourA (standard) and FlavourB (added enhancement). Six observers located features in the breast they suspected to be cancerous (4,188 observations). Data were analysed using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis. Characteristics of the cancers detected with each image processing type were investigated. RESULTS: For calcifications, the JAFROC figure of merit (FOM) was equal to 0.86 for both types of image processing. For soft-tissue lesions, the JAFROC FOM were better for FlavourA (0.81) than FlavourB (0.78); this difference was significant (p=0.001). Using FlavourA a greater number of cancers of all grades and sizes were detected than with FlavourB. FlavourA improved soft-tissue lesion detection in denser breasts (p=0.04 when volumetric density was over 7.5%) CONCLUSIONS: The detection of malignant soft-tissue lesions (which were primarily invasive) was significantly better with FlavourA than FlavourB image processing. This is despite FlavourB having a higher contrast appearance often preferred by radiologists. It is important that clinical choice of image processing is based on objective measures.

Microbubble detection and ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer.

AIMS: To assess the feasibility of undertaking microbubble-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) and determine its sensitivity in detecting metastases. Patient experience and the impact of VAB on subsequent axillary surgery were also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a normal axillary ultrasound or benign core biopsy planned for surgical SLN biopsy were recruited. Part 1 of the study was used to establish the technique of ultrasound microbubble contrast to detect the SLN. In Part 2 microbubble detection of the SLN was followed by 13 G VAB. All patients subsequently had surgical histological correlation. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients were recruited: 36 to Part 1 and 103 to Part 2. Of the 100 patients in Part 2 included for analysis, 82 (82%) underwent successful biopsy. Sensitivity for detecting metastases was 58.8% (95% confidence interval: 32.9%, 81.6%). The procedure was generally well tolerated; however, VAB interfered adversely with subsequent surgical SLN biopsy with surgeons reporting moderate or severe interference in 48% of patients and an additional 8.3% with complete failure of SLNB. CONCLUSION: It is possible to perform VAB of microbubble-detected SLNs. Although the sensitivity for detecting metastases was reasonable, the adverse effect on subsequent surgery was significant.

Multidisciplinary decisions in breast cancer: does the patient receive what the team has recommended?

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to breast cancer management is the gold standard. The aim is to evaluate MDT decision making in a modern breast unit. METHODS: All referrals to the breast MDT where breast cancer was diagnosed from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011 were included. Multidisciplinary team decisions were compared with subsequent patient management and classified as concordant or discordant. RESULTS: Over the study period, there were 3230 MDT decisions relating to 705 patients. Overall, 91.5% (2956 out of 3230) of decisions were concordant, 4.5% (146 out of 3230), were discordant and 4% (128 out of 3230) had no MDT decision. Of 146 discordant decisions, 26 (17.8%) were considered 'unjustifiable' as there was no additional information available after the MDT to account for the change in management. The remaining 120 discordant MDT decisions were considered 'justifiable', as management was altered due to patient choice (n=61), additional information available after MDT (n=54) or MDT error (n=5). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of MDT decisions are implemented. Management alteration was most often due to patient choice or additional information available after the MDT. A minority of management alterations were 'unjustifiable' and the authors recommend that any patient whose treatment is subsequently changed should have MDT rediscussion prior to treatment.

The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) rose rapidly when the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) started in 1988. Some authorities consider that this represents both over-diagnosis and over-treatment. We report long-term follow-up of DCIS diagnosed in the first 10 years (April 1988 to March 1999) of the West Midlands NHSBSP. METHODS: 840 noninvasive breast cancers were recorded on the national breast screening computer system. Following exclusions, and thorough case note and pathology review, 700 DCIS cases were identified for follow-up. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 183 (range 133 to 259) months, 102 (14.6%) first local recurrences were identified, 49 (48%) were invasive. Median time to first noninvasive recurrence was 15 months, and 60 months for invasive recurrence. Median time to invasive recurrence was 76 months from initially high-grade DCIS, and 131 months from low/intermediate grade DCIS. For the seven women, presenting with metastasis as their first event, the median time was 82 (range 15 to 188) months. The cumulative proportion developing recurrence at 180 months was twice as high as at 60 months. INTERPRETATION: Short-term follow-up of patients diagnosed with DCIS will miss significant numbers of events, especially invasive local recurrences.

An optoacoustic imaging feature set to characterise blood vessels surrounding benign and malignant breast lesions.

Combining optoacoustic (OA) imaging with ultrasound (US) enables visualisation of functional blood vasculature in breast lesions by OA to be overlaid with the morphological information of US. Here, we develop a simple OA feature set to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions. 94 female patients with benign, indeterminate or suspicious lesions were recruited and underwent OA-US. An OA-US imaging feature set was developed using images from the first 38 patients, which contained 14 malignant and 8 benign solid lesions. Two independent radiologists blindly scored the OA-US images of a further 56 patients, which included 31 malignant and 13 benign solid lesions, with a sensitivity of 96.8% and specificity of 84.6%. Our findings indicate that OA-US can reveal vascular patterns of breast lesions that indicate malignancy using a simple feature set based on single wavelength OA data, which is therefore amenable to application in low resource settings for breast cancer management.

Explaining the difference in prognosis between screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: We analysed 10-year survival data in 19,411 women aged 50-64 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in the West Midlands region of the United Kingdom. The aim was to estimate the survival advantage seen in cases that were screen detected compared with those diagnosed symptomatically and attribute this to shifts in prognostic variables or survival differences specific to prognostic categories. METHODS: We studied tumour size, histological grade and the Nottingham Prognostic Index in very narrow categories and investigated the distribution of these prognostic factors within screen-detected and symptomatic tumours. We also adjusted for lead time bias. RESULTS: The unadjusted 10-year breast cancer survival in screen-detected cases was 85.5% and in symptomatic cases 62.8%; after adjustment for lead time bias, survival in the screen-detected cases was 79.3%. Within narrow categories of prognostic variables, survival differences were small, indicating that the majority of the survival advantage of screen detection is due to differences in the distributions of size and node status. CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that a combination of lead time with size and node status in 10 categories explained almost all (97%) of the survival advantage. Only a small proportion remained to be explained by biological differences, manifested as length bias or overdiagnosis.

Ultrasound elastography as an adjuvant to conventional ultrasound in the preoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes in suspected breast cancer: a pilot study.

AIMS: To compare the performance of ultrasound elastography with conventional ultrasound in the assessment of axillary lymph nodes in suspected breast cancer and whether ultrasound elastography as an adjunct to conventional ultrasound can increase the sensitivity of conventional ultrasound used alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty symptomatic women with a sonographic suspicion for breast cancer underwent ultrasound elastography of the ipsilateral axilla concurrent with conventional ultrasound being performed as part of triple assessment. Elastograms were visually scored, strain measurements calculated and node area and perimeter measurements taken. Theoretical biopsy cut points were selected. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and compared for elastograms and conventional ultrasound images with surgical histology as the reference standard. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 57 years. Twenty-nine out of 50 of the nodes were histologically negative on surgical histology and 21 were positive. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for conventional ultrasound were 76, 78, 70, and 81%, respectively; 90, 86, 83, and 93%, respectively, for visual ultrasound elastography; and for strain scoring, 100, 48, 58 and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between any of the node measurements CONCLUSIONS: Initial experience with ultrasound elastography of axillary lymph nodes, showed that it is more sensitive than conventional ultrasound in detecting abnormal nodes in the axilla in cases of suspected breast cancer. The specificity remained acceptable and ultrasound elastography used as an adjunct to conventional ultrasound has the potential to improve the performance of conventional ultrasound alone.

One-stop diagnostic breast clinics: how often are breast cancers missed?

The aim of this study was to estimate the number of patients discharged from a symptomatic breast clinic who subsequently develop breast cancer and to determine how many of these cancers had been 'missed' at initial assessment. Over a 3-year period, 7004 patients were discharged with a nonmalignant diagnosis. Twenty-nine patients were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer over the next 36 months. This equates to a symptomatic 'interval' cancer rate of 4.1 per 1000 women in the 36 months after initial assessment (0.9 per 1000 women within 12 months, 2.6 per 1000 women within 24 months). The lowest sensitivity of initial assessment was seen in patients of 40-49 years of age, and these patients present the greatest imaging and diagnostic challenge. Following multidisciplinary review, a consensus was reached on whether a cancer had been missed or not. No delay occurred in 10 patients (35%) and probably no delay in 7 patients (24%). Possible delay occurred in three patients (10%) and definite delay in diagnosis (i.e., a 'missed' cancer) occurred in only nine patients (31%). The overall diagnostic accuracy of 'triple' assessment is 99.6% and the 'missed' cancer rate is 1.7 per 1000 women discharged.

Non-operative diagnosis--effect on repeat-operation rates in the UK breast screening programme.

Non-operative diagnosis rates in the UK breast screening programme have improved dramatically from 48.8% in 1994/95 (only nine units achieved the then minimum standard of 70%) to 94% in 2005/06 (only seven units failed to achieve the target of 90%). Preoperative and operative history of all 120,550 women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer in the UK between April 1994 and March 2006 was derived from different national databases. In 2005/06, 2,790 (17.8%) of the 15,688 women having surgery needed two or more operations. In 2001/02 (non-operative diagnosis rate 87%), the re-operation rate was 23.8% (2,377 of 9,969). Extrapolation backwards to 1994/95 (non-operative diagnosis rate 48.8%) suggests a re-operation rate of 62%. Analysis over the 4 years from April 2002 (n=34,198) demonstrates that 4,089 (12%) women with a correct non-operative diagnosis of invasive disease required additional surgery compared to 1,166 (48%) of women who were under-staged (diagnosed as non-invasive based on core biopsy, but actually suffering from invasive disease). Failure to achieve a non-operative diagnosis of invasive disease (n=1,542) or non-invasive disease (n=2,247) resulted in re-operation rates of 65 and 43% respectively. Given the impact of not having a diagnosis pre-operatively, or of under-staging invasive carcinoma, it seems timely to introduce more sophisticated standards.

Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Breast screening specificity is improved if previous mammograms are available, which presents a challenge when converting to digital mammography. Two display options were investigated: mounting previous film mammograms on a multiviewer adjacent to the workstation, or digitising them for soft copy display. Eight qualified screen readers were videotaped undertaking routine screen reading for two 45-min sessions in each scenario. Analysis of gross eye and head movements showed that when digitised, previous mammograms were examined a greater number of times per case (p = 0.03), due to a combination of being used in 19% more cases (p = 0.04) and where used, looked at a greater number of times (28% increase, p = 0.04). Digitising previous mammograms reduced both the average time taken per case by 18% (p = 0.04) and the participants' perceptions of workload (p < 0.05). Digitising previous analogue mammograms may be advantageous, in particular in increasing their level of use.

The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification.

Standardisation of the classification of breast imaging reports will improve communication between the referrer and the radiologist and avoid ambiguity, which may otherwise lead to mismanagement of patients. Following wide consultation, the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group has produced a scoring system for the classification of breast imaging. This will facilitate audit and the development of nationally agreed standards for the investigation of women with breast disease. This five-point system is as follows: 1, normal; 2, benign findings; 3, indeterminate/probably benign findings; 4, findings suspicious of malignancy; 5, findings highly suspicious of malignancy. It is recommended that this be used in the reporting of all breast imaging examinations in the UK.