MRI only detected lesions: Can contrast enhanced mammography guided biopsy be an alternative method: Initial clinical findings.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze our initial findings regarding CEM-guided stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy for MRI-only detected lesions and compare biopsy times by MRI-guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, CEM-guided biopsies of MRI-only detected breast lesions from December 2021 to June 2023were included. Patient demographics, breast density, lesion size, background parenchymal enhancement on CEM, lesion positioning, procedure duration, and number of scout views were documented. Initially, seven patients had CEM imaging before biopsy; for later cases, CEM scout views were used for simultaneous lesion depiction and targeting. RESULTS: Two cases were excluded from the initial 28 patients with 29 lesions resulting in a total of 27 lesions in 26 women (mean age:44.96 years). Lesion sizes ranged from 4.5 to 41 mm, with two as masses and the remaining as non-mass enhancements. Histopathological results identified nine malignancies (33.3 %, 9/27), including invasive cancers (55.6 %, 5/9) and DCIS (44.4 %, 4/9). The biopsy PPV rate was 33.3 %. Benign lesions comprised 66.7 %, with 22.2 % high-risk lesions. The biopsy success rate was 93.1 % (27/29), and minor complications occurred in seven cases (25.9 %, 7/27), mainly small hematomas and one vasovagal reaction (3.7 %, 1/27). Median number of scout views required was 2, with no significant differences between cases with or without prior CEM (P = 0.8). Median duration time for biopsy was 14 min, significantly shorter than MRI-guided bx at the same institution (P < 0.001) by 24 min with predominantly upright positioning of the patient (88.9 %) and horizontal approach of the needle (92.6 %). CONCLUSION: This study showed that CEM-guided biopsy is a feasible and safe alternative method and a faster solution for MRI-only detected enhancing lesions and can be accurately performed without the need for prior CEM imaging.

Diagnostic value of synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging on breast magnetic resonance imaging assessment: comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging.

PURPOSE: To compare images generated by synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging (sDWI) with those from conventional DWI in terms of their diagnostic performance in detecting breast lesions when performing breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: A total of 128 consecutive patients with 135 enhanced lesions who underwent dynamic MRI between 2018 and 2021 were included. The sDWI and DWI signals were compared by three radiologists with at least 10 years of experience in breast radiology. RESULTS: Of the 82 malignant lesions, 91.5% were hyperintense on sDWI and 73.2% were hyperintense on DWI. Of the 53 benign lesions, 71.7% were isointense on sDWI and 37.7% were isointense on DWI. sDWI provides accurate signal intensity data with statistical significance compared with DWI (P < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of DWI and sDWI to differentiate malignant breast masses from benign masses was as follows: sensitivity 73.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 62-82], specificity 37.7% (95% CI: 24-52); sensitivity 91.5% (95% CI: 83-96), specificity 71.7% (95% CI: 57-83), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DWI and sDWI was 59.2% and 83.7%, respectively. However, when the DWI images were evaluated with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and compared with the sDWI images, the sensitivity was 92.68% (95% CI: 84-97) and the specificity was 79.25% (95% CI: 65-89) with no statistically significant difference. The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Synthetic DWI is superior to DWI for lesion visibility with no additional acquisition time and should be taken into consideration when conducting breast MRI scans. The evaluation of sDWI in routine MRI reporting will increase diagnostic accuracy.

Artificial Intelligence in BI-RADS Categorization of Breast Lesions on Ultrasound: Can We Omit Excessive Follow-ups and Biopsies?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been increasingly applied to breast ultrasonography. They are expected to decrease the workload of radiologists and to improve diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of an AI system for the BI-RADS category assessment in breast masses detected on breast ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 715 masses detected in 530 patients were analyzed. Three breast imaging centers of the same institution and nine breast radiologists participated in this study. Ultrasound was performed by one radiologist who obtained two orthogonal views of each detected lesion. These images were retrospectively reviewed by a second radiologist blinded to the patient's clinical data. A commercial AI system evaluated images. The level of agreement between the AI system and the two radiologists and their diagnostic performance were calculated according to dichotomic BI-RADS category assessment. RESULTS: This study included 715 breast masses. Of these, 134 (18.75%) were malignant, and 581 (81.25%) were benign. In discriminating benign and probably benign from suspicious lesions, the agreement between AI and the first and second radiologists was moderate statistically. The sensitivity and specificity of radiologist 1, radiologist 2, and AI were calculated as 98.51% and 80.72%, 97.76% and 75.56%, and 98.51% and 65.40%, respectively. For radiologist 1, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 54.10%, the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.58%, and the accuracy was 84.06%. Radiologist 2 achieved a PPV of 47.99%, NPV of 99.32%, and accuracy of 79.72%. The AI system exhibited a PPV of 39.64%, NPV of 99.48%, and accuracy of 71.61%. Notably, none of the lesions categorized as BI-RADS 2 by AI were malignant, while 2 of the lesions classified as BI-RADS 3 by AI were subsequently confirmed as malignant. By considering AI-assigned BI-RADS 2 as safe, we could potentially avoid 11% (18 out of 163) of benign lesion biopsies and 46.2% (110 out of 238) of follow-ups. CONCLUSION: AI proves effective in predicting malignancy. Integrating it into the clinical workflow has the potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies and short-term follow-ups, which, in turn, can contribute to sustainability in healthcare practices.

Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficiency of time use for radiologists and operational costs of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS). Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived. One hundred and fifty-three patients, aged 21-81 years, underwent both ABUS and HHUS. The time required for the ABUS scanning and radiologist interpretation and the combined scanning and interpretation time for HHUS were recorded for screening and diagnostic exams. One-Way ANOVA test was used to compare the methods, and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to achieve the agreement levels. Finally, the cost of the methods and return of interest were compared by completing a cost analysis. Results: The overall mean ± standard deviation examination time required for ABUS examination was 676.2±145.42 seconds while mean scan time performed by radiographers was 411.76±67.79 seconds, and the mean radiologist time was 234.01±81.88 seconds. The overall mean examination time required for HHUS was 452.52±171.26 seconds, and the mean scan time and radiologist time were 419.62±143.24 seconds. The reduced time translated into savings of 7.369 TL/month, and savings of 22% in operational costs was achieved with ABUS. Conclusion: The radiologist's time was reduced with ABUS in both screening and diagnostic scenarios. Although a second-look HHUS is required for diagnostic cases, ABUS still saves radiologists time by enabling a focused approach instead of a complete evaluation of both breasts. Thus, ABUS appears to save both medical staff time and operational costs.