RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiology residents' opinions about breast imaging and the possibility of choosing this subspecialty after completing their residency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We elaborated a 15-question survey aimed at radiology residents in Spain. The survey was approved by the Spanish Society of Breast Imaging (SEDIM) and the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and it was disseminated by the SERAM through links to Google Forms via social networks and emails. Responses sent between February 21, 2020 and July 31, 2020 were accepted. RESULTS: A total of 72 residents responded to the survey (7.83% response rate); 69.44% of these were third- or fourth-year residents. Of the respondents, 73.61% knew about the SEDIM, and 18.06% knew about the European Society of Breast Imaging. The duration of training programs was three months for 70.83% of respondents. In 7.84% of the responses, residents stated that their supervision was less than 50%, and 70.59% of the residents stated that the rotation exceeded their expectations. One-third of the respondents would consider a fellowship in breast imaging. In all hospitals, residents did diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound; not all did interventional procedures. Aspects of breast imaging that were rated negatively included the lack of CT studies and the possible legal repercussions of errors. Aspects that were rated positively were dynamics, interventionism, and the role of the radiologist in the process of care for patients with breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents considered that their rotations in breast imaging exceeded their expectations; however, only a small percentage of residents would consider specializing in the field.
Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Radiología , Becas , Humanos , Mamografía , Radiología/educación , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate radiology residents' opinions about breast imaging and the possibility of choosing this subspecialty after completing their residency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We elaborated a 15-question survey aimed at radiology residents in Spain. The survey was approved by the Spanish Society of Breast Imaging (SEDIM) and the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and it was disseminated by the SERAM through links to Google Forms via social networks and emails. Responses sent between February 21, 2020 and July 31, 2020 were accepted. RESULTS: A total of 72 residents responded to the survey (7.83% response rate); 69.44% of these were third- or fourth-year residents. Of the respondents, 73.61% knew about the SEDIM, and 18.06% knew about the European Society of Breast Imaging. The duration of training programs was three months for 70.83% of respondents. In 7.84% of the responses, residents stated that their supervision was less than 50%, and 70.59% of the residents stated that the rotation exceeded their expectations. One-third of the respondents would consider a fellowship in breast imaging. In all hospitals, residents did diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound; not all did interventional procedures. Aspects of breast imaging that were rated negatively included the lack of CT studies and the possible legal repercussions of errors. Aspects that were rated positively were dynamics, interventionism, and the role of the radiologist in the process of care for patients with breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents considered that their rotations in breast imaging exceeded their expectations; however, only a small percentage of residents would consider specializing in the field.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Value the utility of breast MRI abbreviated protocols for the screening of breast cancer in high-risk patients compared to the full protocol. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 157 breast MRI of 82 high-risk patients practiced in our hospital between January 2011 and January 2017. Clinical, radiological and anatomopathological parameters were analyzed. Reading of the different protocols (MIP, abbreviated and full) was made by an expert radiologist. Subsequent statistical analysis was done. RESULTS: A total amount of 12 findings classified as BI-RADS 4 and 5 were identified and performed a biopsy, resulting 11 of them to be malignant (91.67%) and 1 benign (8.33%). The malignant wounds included 4 intraductal carcinoma (33.33%) and 7 infiltrating ductal carcinoma (58.33%). All injuries were detected with the three protocols and no significant differences were found between their respective area under the ROC curve (p=0.0650). CONCLUSIONS: In our study there are no significant differences between the different protocols (MIP, abbreviated and full), which places the abbreviated protocol as a promising tool for breast cancer screening in high-risk patients.