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.

Patient Preferences of Breast Radiologists' Attire and Appearance.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess patient preferences for breast radiologists' attire and appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional anonymous, voluntary 19-question survey was administered to patients undergoing screening and diagnostic mammography examinations over a 5-week period. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents were asked about their preferences for gender-neutral attire (white coat), male-presenting attire (scrubs, dress shirt with tie, or dress shirt without tie), and female-presenting attire (scrubs, dress, blouse with pants, and blouse with skirt). Patient responses were compared to demographic data using bivariable analysis and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Response rate was 84.7% (957/1130). Mean respondent age was 57.2 years±11.9. Most respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the breast radiologist's appearance mattered (52.5%, 502/956) followed by being indifferent (28.1%, 269/956). Respondents with greater education levels felt less strongly (p=0.001) about the radiologist's appearance: 63.3% (70/110) less than college cared about appearance compared to 53.5% (266/497) college/vocational and 47.4% (165/348) graduate. Most respondents felt indifferent about a breast radiologist wearing a white coat (68.9%, 657/954) or about male-presenting breast radiologists wearing a tie (77.1%, 734/952) without significant demographic differences. Almost all respondents either prefer/strongly prefer (60.1%, 572/951) or were indifferent (39.6%, 377/951) to all breast radiologists wearing scrubs when performing procedures. While respondents approved of all attire choices overall, most respondents preferred scrubs for both male- and female-presenting breast radiologists (64.0%, 612/957 and 64.9%, 621/957, respectively). CONCLUSION: A variety of breast radiologists' attire can be worn while maintaining provider professionalism and without compromising patient expectations.

Now or Later? Patient Satisfaction and Anxiety Among Women Undergoing Breast Biopsies Performed the Same Day as Recommended Versus a Later Day.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine differences in patient satisfaction and anxiety among women undergoing core-needle breast biopsies performed the same day as recommended versus a future date. METHODS: After institutional review board exemption was granted, a survey was administered to patients at four sites on the day of imaging-guided core-needle breast biopsy. The survey was available from November 2020 through January 2022. Questions pertained to biopsy timing (same day versus later day), pre- and postbiopsy satisfaction with overall breast-care experience, biopsy wait-time satisfaction, pre- and postbiopsy anxiety, radiologist-patient communication, demographics, life stressors, breast cancer history, and risk factors. Comparisons were made between same-day and later-day biopsies by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of 974 respondents (response rate 65.6%), almost half were scheduled for same-day biopsies (47.8% [466 of 974]). In multivariate analyses, same-day biopsies were associated with higher prebiopsy overall breast-care satisfaction (P < .001), higher wait-time satisfaction (P < .001), and higher prebiopsy (P = .001) and postbiopsy anxiety (P = .001). Better radiologist-patient communication was associated with lower prebiopsy anxiety (P < .001) and greater prebiopsy overall (P < .001) and wait-time (P < .001) satisfaction. Compared with White women, Black women reported lower postbiopsy anxiety (P < .001) but also lower prebiopsy satisfaction (P = .03) and wait-time satisfaction (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Same-day versus later-day biopsies resulted in better prebiopsy overall breast-care and wait-time patient satisfaction scores; however, no satisfaction differences were noted after biopsy. Clinically significant anxiety was associated with both same- and later-day biopsies but was higher for same-day biopsies. Higher anxiety levels correlated with lower overall satisfaction, suggesting that interventions to reduce anxiety and improve communication could improve patient experiences during same-day biopsies.

Optimizing the Patient Experience in Breast Imaging Facilities: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Breast imaging studies are complex examinations for patients and providers. Breast imaging providers and organizations invest significant resources in educating patients and referring providers to address variability in changing breast cancer screening recommendations, cultural biases, and socioeconomic barriers for patients. The breast imaging examination frequently involves multiple imaging modalities including interventional procedures, thus requiring multiple room types. Practices need to consider variables that affect workflow efficiency throughout the process of scheduling, examination performance, interpretation, and results delivery, as well as options in facilities design to create inviting yet functional environments for patients. Breast imaging appointments provide opportunity to capture individual breast cancer risk and to engage patients in health education and breast screening awareness. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review discusses ways in which breast imaging facilities can optimize patient experience throughout the complex process of a breast imaging examination, based on the authors' observations and opinions that include private and academic breast imaging experience.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR.

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Leveraging Society Membership for Career Development.

A breast radiologist who is early in their career will be faced with many opportunities that can be both challenging and rewarding. It is helpful to be aware of the resources available in the breast imaging field. Specialty society membership provides opportunities for personal and professional growth. Connections and relationships can be made with other breast radiologists at differing career stages, presenting opportunities to develop mentor-mentee relationships with experienced members and peer-to-peer relationships with colleagues who may have similar professional experiences. The resources available through society membership can assist in career development and help navigate academic and private practice settings.

A risk model for digital breast tomosynthesis to predict breast cancer and guide clinical care.

Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer detection and reduces false positives. However, currently, no breast cancer risk model takes advantage of the additional information generated by DBT imaging for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed and internally validated a DBT-based short-term risk model for predicting future late-stage and interval breast cancers after negative screening exams. We included the available 805 incident breast cancers and a random sample of 5173 healthy women matched on year of study entry in a nested case-control study from 154,200 multiethnic women, aged 35 to 74, attending DBT screening in the United States between 2014 and 2019. A relative risk model was trained using elastic net logistic regression and nested cross-validation to estimate risks for using imaging features and age. An absolute risk model was developed using derived risks and U.S. incidence and competing mortality rates. Absolute risks, discrimination performance, and risk stratification were estimated in the left-out validation set. The discrimination performance of 1-year risk was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.85) with good calibration (P = 0.7). Using the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines, 14% of the women were at high risk, 19.6 times higher compared to general risk. In this high-risk group, 76% of stage II and III cancers and 59% of stage 0 cancers were observed (P < 0.01). Using mammographic features generated from DBT screens, our image-based risk prediction model could guide radiologists in selecting women for clinical care, potentially leading to earlier detection and improved prognoses.

Letter to the editor on article by Dinh et al. Is it ethical to incentivize mammography screening in Medicaid populations? - A policy review and conceptual analysis. By Stamatia Destounis, MD and Sarah Friedewald MD.

Letter to the Editor on article by Dinh et al- response to the authors comments on " Is it ethical to incentivize mammography screening in Medicaid populations? - A policy review and conceptual analysis".

Breast papillomas in the United States: single institution data on underrepresented minorities with a multi-institutional update on incidence.

PURPOSE: To assess the percentage of papillomas from all biopsies performed, comparing differences in patient age and race at a single institution. To assess trends in biopsied papillomas at institutions throughout the United States (US). METHODS: This is a HIPPA-compliant IRB-approved single-institution (Southern1) retrospective review to assess race and age of all-modality-biopsied non-malignant papillomas as a percentage of all biopsies (percentage papillomas calculated as papilloma biopsies/all biopsies) from January 2012 to December 2019. To assess national variation, several academic or large referral centers were contacted to provide data regarding papilloma percentages, biopsy modalities, and trends in case numbers. Trends were estimated using the method of analysis of variance (ANOVA). Comparisons of differences in trends were assessed. RESULTS: Southern1 institution demonstrated a significant association between race and percentage of papillomas (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction at 5% type I family error, the percentage of biopsied papillomas in Black and Asian patients remained significantly higher than in White patients (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0032, respectively) using a Chi-square test. The regional variation in percentage of papillomas was found to be 3-9%. Southern1 institution showed a 7-year significant trend of increase in percentage of papillomas. Other institutions showed a decreasing trend (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Black and Asian women had significantly higher papilloma percentages compared to white patients in our single institution review. This institution also showed a statistically significant trend of increasing percentage papillomas from 2012 to 2019. Multi-institutional survey found regional variation in percentage papillomas, ranging from 3% to 9%.

Comparison of Cancers Detected by Screening Breast Ultrasound and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: Review of outcomes of screening patients imaged with both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and screening ultrasound (US) to compare the cancer detection rates and characteristics of cancers detected by the imaging modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed a total of 24,787 screening US exams performed in the time period of January 2013 through December 2017. These exams were in patients with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. In this population, 21,220 (86%) had DBT screening mammography. These cases were further reviewed to identify any pathology-proven malignancy detected with US and/or DBT. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 115 breast cancers in patients having screening US and DBT. Of the 115 cancers, 100 were invasive cancers and 15 were ductal carcinoma in situ: 64/115 were seen on DBT, 9 of which were seen only on DBT, and 106 were seen on US, with 51 seen only on US. The cancer detection rate of DBT only was 0.4/1000 (9/21,220) and 3.0/1000 (64/21,220) for those detected on DBT whether with or without additional US, with detection on US only having an incremental cancer detection rate of 2.4/1000 (51/21,220) above DBT detected malignancies. Differences in DBT-detected lesions and US only lesions when comparing median lesion size, lesion type, tumor type (invasive vs noninvasive) and tumor stage were statistically significant (p = 0.0045, p = 0.0113, p = 0.0003, and p = 0.0153, respectively). CONCLUSION: In review of the outcomes of a screening US program, we found a similar number of breast cancers were detected by DBT and US, and US alone (47.8% vs 44.3%, respectively). Ninety-six percent of the cancers detected by US alone were invasive; 89% of those seen on both modalities were invasive, while most of the breast cancers seen on DBT only were in situ carcinoma. Statistically significant differences between DBT and US, and US alone were found for many lesion characteristics including lesion size, type, tumor size, and tumor stage.

Breast Imaging for Transgender Individuals: Assessment of Current Practice and Needs.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate breast radiologists' practices related to recording sex and gender in the electronic medical record, knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender individuals, and experience and willingness to enter screening mammography data from transgender patients into databases that document service provision and outcomes of cancer detection protocols. METHODS: A 19-question anonymous survey was distributed by e-mail to all active physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Response characteristics were assessed as frequencies and percentages and compared between groups using the Fisher exact test or χ2 test. The degree of agreement between questions was assessed using the McNemar test. RESULTS: Four hundred one radiologists across the United States and Canada responded (response rate 18%). Recording birth-assigned sex distinct from gender identity was reported by 44 of 352 respondents (13%). Depending on geographic region, 38% to 62% of breast radiologists followed screening guidelines for transgender women, and 226 of 349 (65%) did not provide screening recommendations for transgender men. Of 400, 324 (81%) believed that the evidence base for screening transgender individuals is incomplete, and 247 of 352 (70%) were either unsure of or had no Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer competency training. A majority (247 of 401 [62%]) of respondents reported that they would enroll transgender patients in existing or novel national databases. CONCLUSIONS: In the practice of breast imaging, there is a substantial need to record transgender and other gender-nonconforming information. Breast radiologists differ in their practice and knowledge regarding screening of transgender women and men but expressed interest in contributing data to facilitate longitudinal databases needed to inform cancer screening guidelines.

Communicating With Breast Imaging Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Patient Care and Physician Wellness.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of COVID-19 on patient-breast radiologist interactions and evaluate the relationship between safety measure-constrained communication and physician wellbeing. METHODS: A 41-question survey on the perceived effect of COVID-19 on patient care was distributed from June 2020 to September 2020 to members of the Society of Breast Imaging and the National Consortium of Breast Centers. Non-radiologists and international members were excluded. Anxiety and psychological distress scores were calculated. A multivariable logistic model was used to identify demographic and mental health factors associated with responses. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-five surveys met inclusion criteria (23% response rate). Diminished ability to fulfill patients' emotional needs was reported by 46% (221/479), a response associated with younger age (OR, 0.8 per decade; P < 0.01), higher anxiety (OR, 2.3; P < 0.01), and higher psychological distress (OR, 2.2; P = 0.04). Personal protective equipment made patient communication more difficult for 88% (422/478), a response associated with younger age (OR, 0.8 per decade; P = 0.008), female gender (OR, 1.9; P < 0.01), and greater anxiety (OR, 2.6; P = 0.001). The inability to provide the same level of care as prior to COVID-19 was reported by 37% (177/481) and was associated with greater anxiety (OR, 3.4; P < 0.001) and psychological distress (OR, 1.7; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The majority of breast radiologists reported that COVID-19 has had a negative impact on patient care. This perception was more likely among younger radiologists and those with higher levels of anxiety and psychological distress.

Managing Challenging Patient Interactions in Breast Imaging.

Managing challenging patient interactions can be a daily stressor for breast imaging radiologists, leading to burnout. This article offers communication and behavioral practices for radiologists that help reduce radiologists' stress during these encounters. Patient scenarios viewed as difficult can vary among radiologists. Radiologists' awareness of their own physical, mental, and emotional states, along with skillful communications, can be cultivated to navigate these interactions and enhance resiliency. Understanding underlying causes of patients' emotional reactions, denial, and anger helps foster empathy and compassion during discussions. When exposed to extremely disruptive, angry, or racially abusive patients, having pre-existing institutional policies to address these behaviors helps direct appropriate responses and guide subsequent actions. These extreme behaviors may catch breast imaging radiologists off guard yet have potentially significant consequences. Rehearsing scripted responses before encounters can help breast imaging radiologists maintain composure in the moment, responding in a calm, nonjudgmental manner, and most effectively contributing to service recovery. However, when challenging patient encounters do trigger difficult emotions in breast imaging radiologists, debriefing with colleagues afterwards and naming the emotion can help the radiologists process their feelings to regain focus for performing clinical duties.

Variations and Challenges to Performing Outside Study Interpretations in Breast Imaging: A National Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging Membership.

OBJECTIVE: Second-opinion interpretations of outside facility breast imaging provide value-added care but are operationally challenging for breast radiologists. Our objective was to survey members of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) to assess practice patterns and perceived barriers to performing outside study interpretations (OSIs). METHODS: An anonymous survey was developed by the Patient Care and Delivery Committee of the SBI and distributed via e-mail to SBI radiologist members. Survey questions included practice demographics and OSI volumes, billing practices, clinical scenarios, and imaging modalities, logistics, and barriers. Responses were aggregated and comparisons were made by univariate analysis using likelihood ratio tests, t-tests, and Spearman's rank correlation tests as appropriate. Ordinal or nominal logistic modeling and linear regression modeling was also performed. RESULTS: There were 371 responses (response rate of 13%). Most respondents practice at an affiliated specialty breast care center (306/371, 83%) and said their practice performed OSIs (256/371, 69%). Academic practices reported the highest OSI volumes (median 75 per month) and were most likely to indicate increases in OSI volumes over time (100/144, 69%). The most common indication for OSI was second opinion for a biopsy recommendation (245/256, 96%). Most practices provide a final BI-RADS assessment (183/261, 70%). The most cited barrier to performing OSIs was physician time constraints (252/369, 68%). CONCLUSION: Breast imaging OSI practice patterns are variable among SBI members with notable differences by practice setting and multiple barriers identified. More unified guidelines and recommendations may be needed for radiologists to better perform this valuable task.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging.

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.

COVID-19 and Breast Radiologist Wellness: Impact of Gender, Financial Loss, and Childcare Need.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the emotional and financial impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on breast radiologists to understand potential consequences on physician wellness and gender disparities in radiology. METHODS: A 41-question survey was distributed from June to September 2020 to members of the Society of Breast Imaging and the National Consortium of Breast Centers. Psychological distress and financial loss scores were calculated on the basis of survey responses and compared across gender and age subgroups. A multivariate logistic model was used to identify factors associated with psychological distress scores. RESULTS: A total of 628 surveys were completed (18% response rate); the mean respondent age was 52 ± 10 years, and 79% were women. Anxiety was reported by 68% of respondents, followed by sadness (41%), sleep problems (36%), anger (25%), and depression (23%). A higher psychological distress score correlated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; P = .001), younger age (OR, 0.8 per SD; P = .005), and a higher financial loss score (OR, 1.4; P < .0001). Participants whose practices had not initiated wellness efforts specific to COVID-19 (54%) had higher psychological distress scores (OR, 1.4; P = .03). Of those with children at home, 38% reported increased childcare needs, higher in women than men (40% versus 29%, P < .001). Thirty-seven percent reported that childcare needs had adversely affected their jobs, which correlated with higher psychological distress scores (OR, 2.2-3.3; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress was highest among younger and female respondents and those with greater pandemic-specific childcare needs and financial loss. Practice-initiated COVID-19-specific wellness efforts were associated with decreased psychological distress. Policies are needed to mitigate pandemic-specific burnout and worsening gender disparities.