Demystifying Breast Disease Markers.

Breast imaging radiologists regularly perform image-guided biopsies of suspicious breast lesions based on features that are associated with a likelihood of malignancy ranging from 2% to greater than 95% (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 4 and 5). As diagnostic partners, pathologists perform histopathologic assessment of these tissue samples to confirm a diagnosis. Correlating the imaging findings with the histopathologic results is an integral aspect of multidisciplinary breast care. Assessment of radiologic-pathologic concordance is vital in guiding appropriate management, as it enables identification of discordant results, minimizing the chance of misdiagnosis. Undersampling can lead to false-negative results, with the frequencies of false-negative diagnoses varying on the basis of multiple factors, including biopsy type (eg, core needle, vacuum-assisted needle), needle gauge, and type of lesion sampled at biopsy (ie, mass, calcifications, asymmetry, architectural distortion). Improving a radiologist's knowledge of macroscopic and microscopic breast anatomy and more common breast diseases and their expected imaging findings ensures more accurate radiologic-pathologic correlation and management recommendations. The histopathologic and molecular characteristics of biopsy-sampled breast lesions aid in making an accurate diagnosis. Hematoxylin-eosin staining provides critical morphologic details, whereas immunohistochemical staining enables molecular characterization of many benign and malignant lesions, which is critical for tailored treatment. The authors review commonly encountered benign and malignant breast diseases, their corresponding histopathologic phenotypes, and the histopathologic markers that are essential to clinching the diagnosis of these entities. As part of a multidisciplinary team that provides optimal patient care, radiologists should be knowledgeable of the foundations of histopathologic diagnosis and the implications for patient management to ensure appropriate radiologic-pathologic concordance. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

MD and DO: Differing Medical Degrees and the Associated Perceptions.

PURPOSE: To highlight perspectives about differing medical degrees and graduate medical education amongst current allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) radiology residents. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Two hundred sixty-eight radiology residents were interviewed using an approved Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR) survey designed to evaluate perceptions of allopathic and osteopathic radiology residents regarding type of medical degree and their career development. The surveys were kept anonymous with no identifiable information. Residents in their first through fourth years of training replied with an approximate equal distribution amongst the different years. RESULTS: Based on the 268 respondents, DOs' more so than MDs', reported that their degree type altered their medical careers (P < 0.0001) and that they were advised to not pursue a radiology residency based on degree type (P< 0.0001). In addition, a large majority of both DOs' and MDs' felt that residency selection is favored towards the allopathic degree (P= 0.0451). CONCLUSION: This survey-based study does reveal perceived differences in the residency recruitment process based on degree type. Future discussions to bridge this perceived gap will be important, especially in light of the recent ACGME merger between the 2 educational pathways.

Injected Breast Materials: Review of Imaging Features and Characteristics.

In the United States, silicone and saline breast implants with their familiar radiologic appearance are the mainstays of breast augmentation. However, less well-known sequelae of unconventional injected materials introduced for cosmetic and noncosmetic purposes may also be encountered on breast imaging-for example, free silicone, paraffin and/or oil, polyacrylamide gel, autologous fat, and hyaluronic acid, which are encountered in the setting of breast augmentation. Breast injection of go-yak is not cosmetic but also results in characteristic imaging findings. Breast changes due to extravasation of chemotherapy or interstitial brachytherapy can mimic the appearance of injected noncosmetic materials. Because many of these materials can mimic or obscure imaging findings of breast cancer, it is important to recognize their varied appearances and the limitations of imaging alone in delineating breast injection material from cancer. Given the relatively uncommon incidence of injected materials into the breast, this article aims to review the imaging appearance in order to aid radiologists in maximizing cancer detection and ensuring optimal patient management.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Implant Evaluation.

Breast implant imaging varies depending on patient age, implant type, and symptoms. For asymptomatic patients (any age, any implant), imaging is not recommended. Rupture of saline implants is often clinically evident, as the saline is resorbed and there is a change in breast contour. With saline implants and equivocal clinical findings, ultrasound (US) is the examination of choice for patients less than 30 years of age, either mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age, and mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. For patients with suspected silicone implant complication, MRI without contrast or US is used for those less than 30 years of age; MRI without contrast, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis, or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age; and MRI without contrast or mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. Patients with unexplained axillary adenopathy and silicone implants (current or prior) are evaluated with axillary US. For patients 30 years and older, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is performed in conjunction with US. Last, patients with suspected breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma are first evaluated with US, regardless of age or implant type. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women.

Women and health care professionals generally prefer intensive follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer. However, there are no survival differences between women who obtain intensive surveillance with imaging and laboratory studies compared with women who only undergo testing because of the development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients; more imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms (eg, palpable abnormality). Women with other risk factors that increase their lifetime risk for breast cancer may warrant evaluation with breast MRI. Furthermore, the quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. There is little justification for imaging to detect or rule out metastasis in asymptomatic women with newly diagnosed stage I breast cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

Student-facilitated radiology-pathology correlation conferences: an experiential educational tool to teach multidisciplinary patient care.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide an experiential educational activity during the fourth-year radiology clerkship through a student-facilitated radiology-pathology correlation conference held as part of the radiology departmental conference to increase students' exposure to the longitudinal, multidisciplinary care of a patient and to enhance undergraduate medical education in radiology, pathology, and oncology. METHODS: During July 2006, a formal radiology-pathology correlation conference held by medical students was added to the core curriculum for residents and fellows. A total of 141 students, in groups of 3 to 5, collaborated with an attending radiologist to choose an interesting case with radiology and pathology correlation and subsequently met with a fellow or attending physician in the pathology department to review the slides and pathologic diagnosis. A 1-hour departmental conference in the fourth week of the clerkship was devoted to the students' presentations. Formal evaluation was performed from March 2007 to March 2008, through completion of an anonymized questionnaire evaluating the logistics and content of this educational activity. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen students (83%) felt that the session taught them about the longitudinal care of patients. A majority of the students, 118 (84%), preferred the student-facilitated format to a resident-run conference. In addition, 124 (88%) thought that this type of activity should continue to be part of the clerkship, and 119 (84%) thought that this type of exercise would be a valuable addition to other core clerkships. CONCLUSION: Student-facilitated radiology-pathology departmental conferences are an effective means to provide students an opportunity to integrate imaging into the longitudinal care of patients and to expose students to the multidisciplinary approach to patient care.