Interpreting contrast imaging to plan breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are more accurate than conventional imaging (CI) for breast cancer staging. How adding CEM and MRI to CI might change the surgical plan is understudied. METHODS: Surgical plans (breast conserving surgery (BCS), wider BCS, BCS with diagnostic excision (>1BCS), mastectomy) were devised by mock-MDT (radiologist, surgeon and pathology reports) according to disease extent on CI, CI + CEM and CI + MRI. Differences in the mock-MDT's surgical plans following the addition of CEM or MRI were investigated. Using pre-defined criteria, the appropriateness of the modified plans was assessed by comparing estimated disease extent on imaging with final pathology. Surgery performed was recorded from patient records. RESULTS: Contrast imaging modified mock-MDT plans for 20 of 61(32.8%) breasts. The addition of CEM changed the plan in 16/20 (80%) and MRI in 17/20 breasts (85%). Identical changes were proposed by both CEM and MRI in 13/20 (65%) breasts. The modified surgical plan based on CI + CEM was possibly appropriate for 6/16 (37.5%), and CI + MRI in 9/17, (52.9%) breasts. The surgery performed was concordant with the mock-MDT plan for all 10 patients where the plans could be compared (BCS 1, >1 BCS 2 and mastectomy 7). CONCLUSION: Adding CEM or MRI to CI changed mock-MDT plans in up to one third of women, but not all were appropriate. Changing surgical plans following addition of contrast imaging to CI without biopsy confirmation could lead to over or under-treatment.

Iodine-125 seeds to guide removal of impalpable breast lesions: radio-guided occult lesion localization - a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to confirm that radio-guided occult lesion localization using low activity iodine 125 (I-125) seeds (ROLLIS) could be safely and accurately used for localization and guided excision of impalpable breast lesions in different multidisciplinary settings and to prepare staff for a randomized controlled trial. METHOD: Preoperative image-guided localization of 102 lesions using one or two I-125 seeds with hook-wire back-up was performed in 99 participants at two tertiary hospitals. Preoperative core biopsy in 24 lesions was benign or indeterminate (Group A) and malignant in 78 lesions (Group B). Imaging and histopathology findings and re-excision rates were recorded. Training requirements for new staff and seed handling protocols were refined. RESULTS: All seeds and lesions were successfully removed. In five of 23 Group A participants, malignancy on final pathology required definitive surgery for positive margins. The re-excision rate in Group B was 17%. Overall re-excision rate was 18%. Thirty-seven clinical staff members were trained. Sentinel node localization was successful in all 76 cases. Seeds of low activity were successfully used. CONCLUSION: The ROLLIS technique using a lower dose (∼2 MBq) seed is safe, effective and can easily be adopted in a large multi-disciplinary setting.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance.

INTRODUCTION: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) may have similar diagnostic performance to Contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) in the diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. To date, research has focused exclusively on diagnostic performance when comparing these two techniques. Patient experience is also an important factor when comparing and deciding on which of these modalities is preferable. The aim of this study is to compare patient experience of CESM against CEMRI during preoperative breast cancer staging. METHODS: Forty-nine participants who underwent both CESM and CEMRI, as part of a larger trial, completed a Likert questionnaire about their preference for each modality according to the following criteria: comfort of breast compression, comfort of intravenous (IV) contrast injection, anxiety and overall preference. Participants also reported reasons for preferring one modality to the other. Quantitative data were analysed using a Wilcoxon sign-rank test and chi-squared test. Qualitative data are reported descriptively. RESULTS: A significantly higher overall preference towards CESM was demonstrated (n = 49, P < 0.001), with faster procedure time, greater comfort and lower noise level cited as the commonest reasons. Participants also reported significantly lower rates of anxiety during CESM compared with CEMRI (n = 36, P = 0.009). A significantly higher rate of comfort was reported during CEMRI for measures of breast compression (n = 49, P = 0.001) and the sensation of IV contrast injection (n = 49, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that overall, patients prefer the experience of CESM to CEMRI, adding support for the role of CESM as a possible alternative to CEMRI for breast cancer staging.