Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening High-risk Women: Comparison with the Full Clinical Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer detection rate (CDR), patient recall, and interpretation time of a full protocol MRI (fpMRI) to an abbreviated MRI protocol (abMRI) in high-risk women. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the IRB. All sequential high-risk screening MRI examinations performed between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were included. Breast radiologists reviewed patient history, prior images, and abMRI images and recorded their interpretation. Time for interpretation reflected review of the MRI study but not dictation or report generation. Following a minimum 30-day washout period, radiologists interpreted the fpMRI, with interpretation and timing recorded. Data collected included CDR, interpretation time, and patient recall rate. Statistical analyses utilized were Cohen's kappa coefficient, Student's t-test, and McNemar's test. RESULTS: Included were 334 MRI examinations of 286 women. Interpretation time was 60.7 seconds for the abMRI compared to 99.4 seconds for the fpMRI, with an average difference of 38.7 ± 5.4 seconds per patient (P < 0.0001). Recall rates were comparable: the abMRI recall rate was 82/334 (24.6%) and the fpMRI 81/334 (24.3%). All five cancers included were detected by both protocols with equal recall rate. However, there were more recommendations for biopsy with the fpMRI, although this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The abMRI demonstrated comparable CDR to fpMRI, with shortened interpretation time and similar recall rates. Implementing an abMRI to screen high-risk women reduces imaging and interpretation time, thereby improving cost-effectiveness and the patient experience without reduction in cancer detection.

Radiologist-Patient Communication: Current Practices and Barriers to Communication in Breast Imaging.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess variability in radiologist-patient communication practices and barriers to communication among members of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI). METHODS: A 36-item questionnaire developed by the SBI Patient Care and Delivery Task Force was distributed electronically to SBI members to evaluate patient communication, education, and screening practices. Data from 14 items investigating patient communication (eg, practices, comfort, barriers to communication) were analyzed and compared with demographic variables using χ2 or independent t tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of radiologists reported that they directly communicate abnormal results of diagnostic mammographic examinations that require biopsy and malignant or high-risk biopsy results that require surgery. Radiologists (66%) and technologists (57%) often provide normal or negative diagnostic mammographic results. Most respondents were completely comfortable discussing the need for additional imaging, recommending biopsy, and discussing biopsy results directly with patients, and 71% rated their communication skills as excellent. Radiologists who spend less time in breast imaging reported only average communication skills. The most frequent barriers to communication were that practices were not set up for direct communication (loss of revenue) and discomfort with angry patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although variation in breast imaging communication practices exists among radiologists and practice types, the majority of radiologists directly communicate the most distressing results to patients, such as those regarding abnormal diagnostic mammographic findings requiring biopsies and abnormal biopsy results leading to cancer diagnoses and surgery. The majority of radiologists are completely comfortable with these conversations, but all feel that enhancing communication with patients will lead to greater patient satisfaction.

Using Social Media to Build Patient Engagement in Breast Radiology.

Breast radiologists can use social media to promote their brand and further connections with their patients, other physicians, and the greater community as a whole. This article offers a discussion and a guide by which breast radiologists can successfully navigate in the era of social media. The discussion is guided by three principles that, when used in collaboration with one another, will increase overall engagement between breast radiologists and the communities they serve. Ultimately, social media can be used by breast radiologists as an effective tool to facilitate engagement and advocate for and educate patients beyond the walls of the clinic.

Gamma Imaging-Guided Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy: Initial Clinical Experience.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate our initial experience with gamma imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in women with abnormal findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), also known as molecular breast imaging (MBI), between April 2011 and October 2015 found 117 nonpalpable mammographically and sonographically occult lesions for which gamma imaging-guided biopsies were recommended. Biopsy was performed with a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted device with subsequent placement of a titanium biopsy site marker. Medical records and pathologic findings were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 117 biopsies recommended, 104 were successful and 13 were canceled. Of the 104 performed biopsies, 32 (30.8%) had abnormal pathologic findings. Of those 32 biopsies, nine (28.1%) found invasive cancers, six (18.8%) found ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 17 (53.1%) found high-risk lesions. Of the 17 high-risk lesions, there were three (17.6%) lobular carcinomas in situ, five (29.4%) atypical ductal hyperplasias, two (11.8%) atypical lobular hyperplasias, one (5.9%) flat epithelial atypia, and six (35.3%) papillomas. Two cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia were upgraded to DCIS at surgery. The overall cancer detection rate for gamma imaging-guided biopsy was 16.3%. In this study, gamma imaging-guided biopsy had a positive predictive value of total successful biopsies of 16.3% for cancer and 30.8% for cancer and high-risk lesions. CONCLUSION: Gamma imaging-guided biopsy is a viable approach to sampling BSGI-MBI-detected lesions without sonographic or mammographic correlate. Our results compare favorably to those reported for MRI-guided biopsy.

Breast-Specific γ-Imaging for the Detection of Mammographically Occult Breast Cancer in Women at Increased Risk.

UNLABELLED: Breast-specific γ-imaging (BSGI) is a physiologic imaging modality that can detect subcentimeter and mammographically occult breast cancer, with a sensitivity and specificity comparable to MRI. The purpose of this study was to determine the incremental increase in breast cancer detection when BSGI is used as an adjunct to mammography in women at increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: All patients undergoing BSGI from April 2010 through January 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligible patients were identified as women at increased risk for breast cancer and whose most recent mammogram was benign. Examinations exhibiting focally increased radiotracer uptake were considered positive. Incremental increase in cancer detection was calculated as the percentage of mammographically occult BSGI-detected breast cancer and the number of mammographically occult breast cancers detected per 1,000 women screened. RESULTS: Included in this study were 849 patients in whom 14 BSGI examinations detected mammographically occult breast cancer. Patients ranged in age from 26 to 83 y, with a mean age of 57 y. Eleven of 14 cancers were detected in women with dense breasts. The addition of BSGI to the annual breast screen of asymptomatic women at increased risk for breast cancer yields 16.5 cancers per 1,000 women screened. When high-risk lesions and cancers were combined, BSGI detected 33.0 high-risk lesions and cancers per 1,000 women screened. CONCLUSION: BSGI is a reliable adjunct modality to screening mammography that increases breast cancer detection by 1.7% (14/849) in women at increased risk for breast cancer, comparable to results reported for breast MRI. BSGI is beneficial in breast cancer detection in women at increased risk, particularly in those with dense breasts.

Comparative Diagnostic Utility of Low-Dose Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging to Current Clinical Standard.

To retrospectively compare low-dose (7-10 mCi) to high-dose (15-30 mCi) breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in the detection of breast cancer. A retrospective review of 223 consecutive women who underwent BSGI exam between February 2011 and August 2013 with subsequent pathologic analysis was performed. Women were divided into low-dose and high-dose groups. The results of BSGI and pathology were compared, and the sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate specificity using benign follow-up imaging to establish true-negative results. There were 223 women who met inclusion criteria with 109 patients with 153 lesions in the low-dose group and 114 patients with 145 lesions in the high-dose group. Pathologic correlation demonstrates sensitivities of 97.6% (95% CI = 90.9-99.6%) and 94.6% (95% CI = 84.2-98.6%; p = 0.093), PPVs of 62.1% (95% CI = 53.2-70.3%) and 50.5% (95% CI = 40.6-60.3%, p = 0.089), and NPVs of 90.5% (95% CI = 68.2-98.3%) and 92.5% (95% CI = 78.5-98.0%, p = 0.781) in the low-dose and high-dose groups, respectively. Subgroup analysis included 72 patients with 98 lesions in the low-dose group and 116 patients with 132 lesions in the high-dose group, with a specificity of 53.7% (95% CI = 39.7-67.1%) and 66.3% (95% CI = 56.2-75.2%%, p = 0.143), respectively. Low-dose BSGI demonstrated high sensitivity and NPV in the detection of breast cancer comparable to the current standard dose BSGI, with moderate specificity and PPV in a limited subgroup analysis, which was associated with a substantial number of false-positives.

Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.

PURPOSE: To determine improvement in breast cancer detection by using supplemental three-dimensional (3D) automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) with screening mammography versus screening mammography alone in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. The SomoInsight Study was an observational, multicenter study conducted between 2009 and 2011. A total of 15 318 women (mean age, 53.3 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; range, 25-94 years) presenting for screening mammography alone with heterogeneously (50%-75%) or extremely (>75%) dense breasts were included, regardless of further risk characterization, and were followed up for 1 year. Participants underwent screening mammography alone followed by an AB US examination; results were interpreted sequentially. McNemar test was used to assess differences in cancer detection. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed at screening in 112 women: 82 with screening mammography and an additional 30 with AB US. Addition of AB US to screening mammography yielded an additional 1.9 detected cancers per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.7; P < .001). Of cancers detected with screening mammography, 62.2% (51 of 82) were invasive versus 93.3% (28 of 30) of additional cancers detected with AB US (P = .001). Of the 82 cancers detected with either screening mammography alone or the combined read, 17 were detected with screening mammography alone. Of these, 64.7% (11 of 17) were ductal carcinoma in situ versus 6.7% (two of 30) of cancers detected with AB US alone. Sensitivity for the combined read increased by 26.7% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.1%); the increase in the recall rate per 1000 women screened was 284.9 (95% CI: 278.0, 292.2; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dense breasts increased the cancer detection yield of clinically important cancers, but it also increased the number of false-positive results.

Breast-specific gamma imaging for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) for the detection of breast cancer in dense versus nondense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 341 women with biopsy-proven breast cancer diagnosed from January 2004 to August 2009 who underwent BSGI before surgical excision. Patients with predominantly fatty replaced (BI-RADS density 1) or scattered fibroglandular tissue (BI-RADS density 2) breasts were classified as nondense, and those with heterogeneously dense (BI-RADS density 3) or extremely dense tissue (BIRADS density 4) were classified as dense. BSGI examinations exhibiting focal increased radiotracer uptake in the area of biopsy-proven cancer were classified as positive according to BSGI reports in the medical record. The sensitivity of BSGI was calculated using Microsoft Excel 2003. Between-group differences were evaluated statistically using the Student t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categoric variables, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of BSGI for breast cancer detection was 95.4%. Positive BSGI examinations were present in 136 of 142 nondense breast cancers and 195 of 205 dense breast cancers, for sensitivities of 95.8% and 95.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in BSGI breast cancer detection and parenchymal breast density (p = 0.459). CONCLUSION: BSGI has high sensitivities for the detection of breast cancer in women with dense and nondense breasts and is an effective adjunct imaging modality in women with both dense and nondense breasts.

Breast-specific gamma imaging influences surgical management in patients with breast cancer.

Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) is a physiologic breast imaging modality that provides more sensitive detection of breast lesions than mammography or ultrasound, and appears to have greater specificity than breast MRI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how often BSGI changed surgical management in patients with breast cancer. Charts were reviewed from 218 consecutive eligible patients who had preoperative evaluation with BSGI or MRI before surgery for breast cancer from January 2008 to May 2010. Patients who were initially considered eligible for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) were evaluated to determine how many ultimately had mastectomies. Patients who underwent mastectomy because of personal choice or ineligibility for BCT were excluded. Management was changed to mastectomy in 11.9% of those who had BSGI and 28.9% of those who had MRI. Review of pathology demonstrated that all patients who underwent mastectomies were not candidates for breast conservation. 15.4% of patients who underwent BCT based on BSGI findings required a single re-excision due to positive surgical margins. 14.4% required mastectomy. In the MRI group, 18.8% required a single re-excision, and 6.3% required mastectomy. Evaluation with BSGI changed management to mastectomy in a substantial proportion of patients believed to be eligible for BCT following standard imaging. BSGI is effective in evaluation of extent of disease in patients with breast cancer, and is comparable to MRI in terms of its influence on surgical management.

Breast-specific gamma imaging in the detection of atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular neoplasia.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Atypical lesions such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and lobular neoplasia are nonmalignant lesions that are associated with significant increased risk of developing breast cancer. Atypical lesions have been reported to present with focal increased radiotracer uptake on breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) examination, a novel physiologic tool for the detection of breast cancer. To date the sensitivity of BSGI in the detection of atypical lesions has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of BSGI in detecting ADH and lobular neoplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1316 patients who received a BSGI exam between January 2006 and July 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients who underwent minimally invasive biopsy and subsequent surgical excision where the highest pathology was solely ADH or lobular neoplasia (reported as ALH, lobular carcinoma in situ or lobular neoplasia), according to the pathology database were included (n = 15). The sensitivity was determined as the percentage of positive BSGI exams out of all patients diagnosed with ADH or lobular neoplasia who received a BSGI. RESULTS: Patient ages ranged from 39 to 67 (mean, 52). Eight of 15 patients had ADH, 6/15 lobular neoplasia, and 1/15 ADH and lobular neoplasia in one lesion. Fifteen of the 15 (100%) patients with surgically confirmed ADH or lobular neoplasia had a positive BSGI, with focally increased radiotracer uptake at the site of the verified high-risk lesion. CONCLUSION: BSGI has a high sensitivity for the detection of atypical, high-risk breast lesions. A diagnosis of an atypical lesion is concordant with focal increased radiotracer uptake with BSGI and can identify women at increased risk for breast cancer.

Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to quantitatively compare the time for interpretation of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images using prior analog film mammograms for comparison versus digitized prior analog mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images from 100 FFDM studies were interpreted by four radiologists. All FFDM images had comparison analog mammograms obtained a minimum of 1 year earlier that were digitized using a 43-µm film digitizer. Initially, the FFDM images were interpreted using the digitized prior mammogram on two, 5-megapixel monitors and PACS. All available PACS tools could be used. Four weeks later, the same 100 screening FFDMs were interpreted using the original analog mammograms on an alternator at 90° to the monitors used to interpret the screening FFDMs. The interpretation times were recorded and compared. The results were compared and evaluated for statistical significance using statistical software, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: For each radiologist, the mean reading time for FFDM with digitized priors was significantly shorter in length in comparison with the mean reading time calculated for interpreting FFDM using analog film priors. The differences in times recorded between digitized analog versus analog ranged from 11.31 to 74.18 seconds. The reading times for the four readers ranged from 17.32 to 185.94 seconds, with a mean of 58.56 seconds when using analog film prior mammograms. When using digitized analog prior mammograms, the reading times for the four readers ranged from 11.32 to 109.11 seconds with a mean of 39.76 seconds. The average difference in reading time was calculated to be 18.80 seconds, showing that there is a 32% increase in interpretation speed when using a digitized prior analog for comparison studies as opposed to an analog prior. CONCLUSION: There is a statistically significant 32.1% average improvement in interpretation time when FFDM screening mammograms use digitized analog comparison mammograms than if FFDM is interpreted with the original analog film mammograms. This should allow more FFDMs to be interpreted in the same amount of time if digitized prior analog mammograms are used.

Factors associated with re-excision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy.

One of the risks of breast conservation surgery is local recurrence, which predominantly occurs as a result of inadequate surgical margins. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with close or positive surgical margins leading to reexcision (RE). The charts of 532 consecutive breast cancer patients treated at our center between September 2001 and June 2007 were reviewed to evaluate patients who opted for breast conservation surgery and needed reexcision. A total of 351 patients were treated with breast conservation, of which 118 (34%) had positive or close surgical margins and went on to RE. On univariate analysis, factors that significantly correlated with RE (P < 0.05) were preoperative diagnosis, final pathology, size of tumor, and presentation with nipple discharge. RE was necessary in 53 per cent of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 57 per cent of patients diagnosed by surgical excision, 86 per cent of patients presenting with nipple discharge, and 87 per cent of patients with DCIS or invasive carcinoma with extensive intraductal component in the final pathology. Additionally, 53 per cent of patients with T3 tumors required RE. Age, race, and grade of tumor had no effect on RE rates. Most (75%) patients were able to ultimately have breast conservation.

Quantification of radio-tracer uptake in axillary lymph nodes using breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI): benign radio-tracer extravasation versus uptake secondary to breast cancer.

To develop a means of quantifying axillary radio-tracer uptake in patients undergoing breast specific gamma imaging. This may help differentiate uptake secondary to extravasation of the radio-tracer at the injection from increased uptake as a result of breast cancer metastatic to lymph nodes. A retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone breast specific gamma imaging was performed. Scans from 26 patients showing increased axillary uptake of radio-tracer were identified from 939 patients reviewed. Eighteen of these patients had increased axillary uptake ipsilateral to the side of tracer injection in the absence of breast cancer on that side. Of these 18 cases, eight patients had pathologic proven axillary metastatic disease with increased axillary uptake contralateral to the side of tracer injection. The maximum signal intensity for each region of increased radio-tracer uptake was measured using the net maximum uptake per region of interest and the two groups of patients were compared. Statistical significance was determined using a two-tailed p-value and 95% confidence intervals were considered statistically significant. The calculated means of the "net maximum uptake per region of interest" in the subjects with increased radio-tracer uptake secondary to radio-tracer extravasation and metastatic breast cancer were 177.89 and 117.25, respectively. Comparison of the means yielded a two-tailed p-value of 0.0498, which is statistically significant. There is a statistically significant greater intensity of axillary radio-tracer uptake when the uptake occurs secondary to extravasation when compared with metastases to axillary lymph nodes.

Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the sensitivity of mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study of women with biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinoma. All patients had undergone mammography and BSGI, and the imaging findings were classified as positive or negative for invasive lobular carcinoma by experienced breast imagers. The results of MRI and sonography, if either was performed, were included. Final surgical pathology results were used as the reference standard and the lesion sensitivities of BSGI, mammography, sonography, and MRI were then statistically compared using CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-six women ranging in age from 46 to 82 years (mean age, 62.8 years) with a total of 28 biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinomas were included in the study group. Mammograms were negative in six of 28 (21%), yielding a sensitivity of 79%. In the 25 patients who underwent sonography, 17 had focal hypoechoic areas, yielding a sensitivity of 68%. In the 12 patients who underwent MRI, the sensitivity was 83%. BSGI had a sensitivity of 93%. There was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of BSGI, MRI, sonography, or mammography, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved detection with BSGI. CONCLUSION: BSGI has the highest sensitivity for the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma with a sensitivity of 93%, whereas mammography, sonography, and MRI showed sensitivities of 79%, 68%, and 83%, respectively. BSGI is an effective technique that should be used to evaluate patients with suspected cancer and has a promising role in the diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma.