Multimodality Imaging of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Techniques, Complications, and Tumor Recurrence.

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Optoacoustic Imaging With Decision Support for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A 15-Reader Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Overlap in ultrasound features of benign and malignant breast masses yields high rates of false-positive interpretations and benign biopsy results. Optoacoustic imaging is an ultrasound-based functional imaging technique that can increase specificity. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare specificity at fixed sensitivity of ultrasound images alone and of fused ultrasound and optoacoustic images evaluated with machine learning-based decision support tool (DST) assistance. METHODS. This retrospective Reader-02 study included 480 patients (mean age, 49.9 years) with 480 breast masses (180 malignant, 300 benign) that had been classified as BI-RADS category 3-5 on the basis of conventional gray-scale ultrasound findings. The patients were selected by stratified random sampling from the earlier prospective 16-site Pioneer-01 study. For that study, masses were further evaluated by ultrasound alone followed by fused ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging between December 2012 and September 2015. For the current study, 15 readers independently reviewed the previously acquired images after training in optoacoustic imaging interpretation. Readers first assigned probability of malignancy (POM) on the basis of clinical history, mammographic findings, and conventional ultrasound findings. Readers then evaluated fused ultrasound and optoacoustic images, assigned scores for ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging features, and viewed a POM prediction score derived by a machine learning-based DST before issuing final POM. Individual and mean specificities at fixed sensitivity of 98% and partial AUC (pAUC) (95-100% sensitivity) were calculated. RESULTS. Averaged across all readers, specificity at fixed sensitivity of 98% was significantly higher for fused ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging with DST assistance than for ultrasound alone (47.2% vs 38.2%; p = .03). Across all readers, pAUC was higher (p < .001) for fused ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging with DST assistance (0.024 [95% CI, 0.023-0.026]) than for ultrasound alone (0.021 [95% CI, 0.019-0.022]). Better performance using fused ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging with DST assistance than using ultrasound alone was observed for 14 of 15 readers for specificity at fixed sensitivity and for 15 of 15 readers for pAUC. CONCLUSION. Fused ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging with DST assistance had significantly higher specificity at fixed sensitivity than did conventional ultrasound alone. CLINICAL IMPACT. Optoacoustic imaging, integrated with reader training and DST assistance, may help reduce the frequency of biopsy of benign breast masses.

Screening Breast Ultrasound: Update After 10 Years of Breast Density Notification Laws.

OBJECTIVE. Breast density notification laws have grown from the first state legislation in Connecticut in 2009 to a federally mandated update to the Mammography Quality Standards Act in 2019. CONCLUSION. The increasing recognition of limited mammographic sensitivity in women with dense breasts has led to greater utilization of supplemental screening ultrasound. Robust data support improved detection of small node-negative invasive breast cancers with adjunctive ultrasound. Digital breast tomosynthesis and other emerging modalities may also play a role in screening guidelines.

Optoacoustic Imaging and Gray-Scale US Features of Breast Cancers: Correlation with Molecular Subtypes.

Background Optoacoustic imaging can assess tumor hypoxia coregistered with US gray-scale images. The combination of optoacoustic imaging and US may have a role in distinguishing breast cancer molecular subtypes. Purpose To investigate whether optoacoustic US feature scores correlate with breast cancer molecular subtypes. Materials and Methods A total of 1972 women (with a total of 2055 breast masses) underwent prebiopsy optoacoustic US in a prospective multi-institutional study between December 2012 and September 2015. Seven readers blinded to pathologic diagnosis scored gray-scale US and optoacoustic US features of the known cancers. Optoacoustic US features within (internal) and outside of the tumor boundary (external) were scored. Immunohistochemistry findings were obtained from pathology reports. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to fit the US scores, adding optoacoustic US features to the model to investigate the incremental benefit of each feature. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the relationship between molecular subtypes and feature scores. Results Among 653 invasive cancers identified in 629 women, a total of 532 cancers in 519 women, all of which had molecular markers available, were included in the analysis. Mean age ± standard deviation was 57.9 years ± 12.6. Mean total external optoacoustic US feature scores of luminal (A and B) breast cancers were higher (9.9 vs 8.8; P < .05) and total internal scores were lower (6.8 vs 7.7; P < .001) than those of triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) cancers. A multinomial logistic regression model showed that optoacoustic internal vessel (odds ratio [OR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5, 0.8; P = .002), optoacoustic internal blush (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9; P = .02), and optoacoustic internal hemoglobin (OR, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.8; P = .001) were associated with classification of luminal versus triple-negative and HER2+ cancer subtypes. Conclusion Combined optoacoustic US imaging and gray-scale US features may help distinguish luminal breast cancers from triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann in this issue.

Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.

PURPOSE: To determine performance and utilization of screening breast ultrasonography (US) in women with dense breast tissue who underwent additional screening breast US in the 1st year since implementation of Connecticut Public Act 09-41 requiring radiologists to inform patients with heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts at mammography that they may benefit from such examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of 935 women with dense breasts at mammography who subsequently underwent handheld screening and whole-breast US from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. RESULTS: Of 935 women, 614 (65.7%) were at low risk, 149 (15.9%) were at intermediate risk, and 87 (9.3%) were at high risk for breast cancer. Of the screening breast US examinations, in 701 (75.0%), results were classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or 2; in 187 (20.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 3; and in 47 (5.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 4. Of 63 aspirations or biopsies recommended and performed in 53 patients, in nine, lesions were BI-RADS category 3, and in 54, lesions were BI-RADS category 4. Among 63 biopsies and aspirations, three lesions were malignant (all BI-RADS category 4, diagnosed with biopsy). All three cancers were smaller than 1 cm, were found in postmenopausal patients, and were solid masses. One cancer was found in each risk group. In 44 of 935 (4.7%) patients, examination results were false-positive. Overall positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy or aspirations performed in patients with BI-RADS category 4 masses was 6.5% (three of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%, 19%). Overall cancer detection rate was 3.2 cancers per 1000 women screened (three of 935; 95% CI: 0.8 cancers per 1000 women screened, 10 cancers per 1000 women screened). CONCLUSION: Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offered to women in the general population with dense breasts can aid detection of small mammographically occult breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 0.8-10 cancers per 1000 women screened), although the overall PPV is low.

3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

AIM: To compare 3.0 Tesla (T) vs 1.5T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. METHODS: Upon Institutional Review Board approval, a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective review of 147 consecutive 3.0T MR examinations and 98 consecutive 1.5T MR examinations in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer between 7/2009 and 5/2010 was performed. Eleven patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the 3.0T group were excluded. Mammographically occult suspicious lesions (BIRADS Code 4 and 5) additional to the index cancer in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast were identified. Lesion characteristics and pathologic diagnoses were recorded, and results achieved with both systems compared. Statistical significance was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In the 3.0T group, 206 suspicious lesions were identified in 55% (75/136) of patients and 96% (198/206) of these lesions were biopsied. In the 1.5T group, 98 suspicious lesions were identified in 53% (52/98) of patients and 90% (88/98) of these lesions were biopsied. Biopsy results yielded additional malignancies in 24% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 14% of patients in the 1.5T group (33/136 vs 14/98, P = 0.07). Average size and histology of the additional cancers was comparable. Of patients who had a suspicious MR imaging study, additional cancers were found in 44% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 27% in the 1.5T group (33/75 vs 14/52, P = 0.06), yielding a higher positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system. CONCLUSION: 3.0T MR imaging detected more additional malignancies in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and yielded a higher PPV for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system.