Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as "high-risk" or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. TEACHING POINTS: • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.

The negative predictive value of electrical impedance scanning in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to prospectively assess the value of electrical impedance scanning (EIS) in discriminating benign from malignant lesions classified as BI-RADS category IV in mammography in comparison with ultrasound (US), with a special focus on negative prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EIS was performed on 128 BI-RADS category IV lesions in 121 women (mean, 51.8 years). The newly developed EIS software 2.67 calculates a BI-RADS-like level of suspicion (LOS) on a 5-grade scale. LOS 1, 2, and 3 were considered negative; LOS 4 and 5 were considered positive. Histopathologic results were obtained in all lesions. RESULTS: Histology proved 37 lesions malignant, 91 benign. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EIS compared with US were 94.6%, 74.7%, 80.5%, 60.3%, 97.1% versus 90.5%, 33.8%, 47.2%, 29.7%, 92.0%, respectively. In 43 lesions sized < or = 10 mm, EIS demonstrated better sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 100%, 83.3%, 90.7%, 82.6%, and 100%, respectively. Although NPV was also high, US showed no sufficient results in 39 (30.5%) lesions because of microcalcifications. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed best results for a combined use of US and EIS. CONCLUSIONS: With a NPV of 97.1% of EIS in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions, a negative result in these lesions could be firm indication to manage them as BI-RADS-category III and refer patients for a 6-month short-interval follow-up rather than performing a biopsy. The best adjunctive diagnostic performance can be achieved by a combination of US and EIS. Costs and patient morbidity could be minimized.

Characterization of benign and malignant breast lesions with computed tomography laser mammography (CTLM): initial experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize benign and malignant breast lesions with computed tomography-laser mammography (CTLM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 100 female patients with 105 breast lesions classified as BIRADS IV to V at mammography underwent mammography, CTLM, and histologic verification at our institution. CTLM images were analyzed by radiologists with knowledge of the lesion's position but who were blinded to histology and morphologic findings from mammography. Two radiologists independently evaluated whether there was increased absorption, a sign of malignancy, on CTLM and assessed the appearance (volumes or linear branching) and shape (round or irregular) of the lesions. RESULTS: Histologic analysis revealed 55 benign (52.4%) and 50 malignant (47.6%) breast lesions. Increased absorption was observed significantly more often in malignant than in benign lesions (70.0% vs. 32.7%, P = 0.028). Invasive cancer showed increased absorption in 76.2%, and ductal carcinoma in situ in 37.5%. Common morphologic characteristics of increased absorption were "volumes" (85.7% of malignant and 77.8% of benign lesions) with round shape (78.1% of malignant and 73.3% of benign lesions). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that CTLM, when used as an adjunct to mammography, may provide additional information to characterize benign and malignant breast lesions.

Potential of dose reduction after marker placement with full-field digital mammography.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to assess the potential for radiation dose reduction in digital postinterventional digital mammograms after marker placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive cases of marker placement (hook-wire localization or postbiopsy clip marker placement), with 200 full-field digital baseline mammograms (craniocaudal and mediolateral), were included in this prospective trial. For the postinterventional digital mammograms, the milliampere seconds were reduced either by 50% or by 75%. Dose-reduced images were evaluated for sufficient image quality to verify the position of the marker. RESULTS: In 193 of 200 cases (96.5%), image quality was sufficient to verify the correct position of the marker. One (1%) case with insufficient image quality occurred in the 50% dose-reduction group and 6 (6%) in the 75% dose-reduction group (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that under evaluation of each individual case, a dose reduction of 50% to 75% can be recommended in postinterventional digital mammograms.

Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?

PURPOSE: To determine whether palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and ultrasonography (US) can be managed similarly to nonpalpable probably benign lesions (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category 3)-that is, with periodic imaging surveillance-and to determine whether biopsy can be averted in these lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: No institutional review board approval or patient consent was required. This retrospective analysis, based on final imaging reports, included 152 patients (age range, 28-77 years; mean age, 48.3 years) with 157 palpable noncalcified solid masses that were classified as probably benign at initial mammography and US. Of 152 patients, 108 underwent follow-up with mammography and US (6-month intervals for 2 years, then 12-month intervals). The remaining 44 patients underwent surgical or needle biopsy after initial imaging. Lesions were analyzed at initial and follow-up examinations. Statistical analysis included Student t test and corresponding exact 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In 108 patients who underwent follow-up only, 112 lesions were palpable. In 102 (94.4%) of 108 patients, masses remained stable during follow-up. Lesions were followed for at least 2 years (mean, 4.1 years; range, 2-7 years). In six (5.6%) patients, palpable lesions increased in size during follow-up; these lesions were benign at subsequent open biopsy. No breast carcinoma was diagnosed in the 44 patients with 45 palpable lesions who underwent biopsy after initial imaging. Of 157 lesions, no malignant tumors were observed (exact one-sided 95% confidence interval: 0%, 1.95%). CONCLUSION: The data strongly suggest that palpable noncalcified solid breast masses with benign morphology at mammography and US can be managed similarly to nonpalpable BI-RADS category 3 lesions, with short-term follow-up (6-month intervals for 2 years). More data, based on a larger series, are required to determine whether this conclusion is correct.

Four-channel multidetector CT in facial fractures: do we need 2 x 0.5 mm collimation?

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to optimize acquisition protocols and multiplanar reformation algorithms for the evaluation of facial fractures using multidetector CT (MDCT) and to determine whether 2 x 0.5 mm collimation is necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cadaveric head with artificial blunt facial trauma was examined using a four-channel MDCT scanner. The influence of acquisition parameters (collimation, 2 x 0.5 mm, 4 x 1 mm, 4 x 2.5 mm; tube current, 120 mAs, 90 mAs, 60 mAs), image reconstruction algorithms (standard vs ultra-high-resolution modes; reconstructed slice thicknesses, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 3 mm; increment, 0.3 mm, 0.6 mm, 1.5 mm), and reformation algorithms (slice thicknesses, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 3 mm; overlap, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 3 mm) on detectability of facial fractures in multiplanar reformations with MDCT was analyzed. RESULTS: Fracture detection was significantly higher with thin multiplanar reformations (0.5 and 0.5 mm, 1 and 0.5 mm, and 1 and 1 mm) (p < or = 0.014) acquired with 2 x 0.5 mm collimation (p < or = 0.046) in ultra-high-resolution mode (p < 0.0005) with 120 mAs (p < or = 0.025). Interobserver variability showed very good agreement (kappa > or = 0.942). Non-ultra-high-resolution mode, lower milliampere-seconds, and thick multiplanar reformations (3 and 0.5 mm, 3 and 1 mm, and 3 and 0.5 mm) showed significantly decreased fracture detectability. CONCLUSION: Although thin multiplanar reformations obtained from thin collimation (2 x 0.5 mm) are statistically superior for the detection of subtle fractures, 4 x 1 mm collimation is sufficient for routine diagnostic evaluation. Ultra-high-resolution mode with 120 mAs is mandatory for detection of clinically relevant fractures.