Focal breast pain: imaging evaluation and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the number and characteristics of cancers detected and the optimal imaging evaluation in women presenting with focal breast pain (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 4720 women who underwent imaging for FBP from 2001 to 2013. Women 18 and over with one or two foci of breast pain and no concurrent breast symptoms were included. 944 patients met criteria. We recorded the imaging work-up, presence and type of finding at the site of pain, BI-RADS® assessment, and pathological outcomes. Subsequent imaging and clinical follow up was recorded. RESULTS: Imaging evaluation consisted of sonogram alone in 286 women, mammogram alone in 231 women, and both in 427 women. 113 women had an imaging finding at the site of pain; 103 were designated benign or probably benign. 12 biopsies of corresponding findings were performed: 9 benign, 1 invasive lobular carcinoma, 1 invasive ductal carcinoma, 1 ductal carcinoma in situ. All three malignancies were seen mammographically; 2 had an ultrasound correlate. At initial evaluation, 4 incidental breast cancers were diagnosed remote from the site of FBP. All were seen on mammogram and 2 of 4 had an ultrasound correlate. On follow up evaluation, 9 cancers were diagnosed at the site of pain and 13 incidental cancers were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: FBP is rarely associated with malignancy. Targeted ultrasound may be deferred in women 40 and older with FBP, no other clinical findings, and a negative mammogram.

Palpable breast abnormalities in women under age 40.

Although the prevalence of malignancy in average risk women under age 40 presenting with a palpable breast abnormality is low, the management of benign-appearing palpable abnormalities remains controversial. This study assesses the imaging evaluation, subsequent management, and outcomes of women under age 40 presenting with a palpable area of concern. This study also evaluates the costs, utility, and outcomes of BI-RADS 3 assessment in this patient population. A single institution retrospective case review from July 2010 through June 2013 identified women under age 40 presenting with a new palpable breast abnormality. Diagnostic imaging evaluation was performed. BI-RADS assessments and recommendations were recorded prospectively. Outcome was determined by tissue diagnosis, 2 years of surveillance, or search of the hospital tumor registry. Performance measures were calculated. Among 1440 cases, 1052 were initially assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2 (73.1%), 184 as BI-RADS 3 (12.8%), 182 as BI-RADS 4 (12.6%), and 22 as BI-RADS 5 (1.5%). In all, 30 breast malignancies were diagnosed (cancer yield 2.1%). All 30 cancers were initially categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5. No BI-RADS 1, 2, or 3 findings proved malignant. The imaging evaluation sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 87.7%, and accuracy was 87.9%. The negative predictive value was 100% and the positive predictive value was 14.7%. Average risk women under age 40 presenting with a palpable abnormality have a low prevalence of breast cancer. Imaging evaluation has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value, thereby allowing for confident characterization and appropriate management recommendations. For palpable solid masses with benign imaging features in women under age 40, short-term interval follow-up with subsequent periodic imaging or clinical examination for a total of 2 years is a cost-effective and safe alternative to biopsy.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures: Quality Metrics for the Care of Patients Undergoing Breast Reconstruction.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the Breast Reconstruction Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. Two outcome measures were identified. The first desired outcome was to reduce the number of returns to the operating room following reconstruction within 60 days of the initial reconstructive procedure. The second desired outcome was to reduce flap loss within 30 days of the initial reconstructive procedure. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Breast Reconstruction Performance Measures Work Group and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Executive Committee. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Evaluation of the Symptomatic Male Breast.

Most male breast problems are benign, and men with typical symptoms of gynecomastia or pseudogynecomastia do not usually need imaging. When a differentiation between benign disease and breast cancer cannot be made on the basis of clinical findings or when the clinical findings are suspicious for breast cancer, imaging is indicated. Mammography is useful in both identifying cancer and obviating the need for biopsy in patients for whom a benign mammographic impression confirms the clinical impression. However, because of the relationship of breast cancer to increasing age, age-based protocols that do not include mammography have been developed. For men with an indeterminate palpable mass, begin with ultrasound if the patient is <25 years of age, because breast cancer is highly unlikely. Mammography should be performed if ultrasound is suspicious. For men ≥25 years of age or having a highly concerning physical examination, usually begin with mammography; ultrasound is useful if mammography is inconclusive or suspicious. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals, and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Pathologic outcomes of nonmalignant papillary breast lesions diagnosed at imaging-guided core needle biopsy.

PURPOSE: To determine the upstage rate from nonmalignant papillary breast lesions obtained at imaging-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) and if there are any clinical, imaging, or pathologic features that can be used to predict eventual upstaging to malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective case review was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant, with a waiver of informed consent. A database search (from January 2001 to March 2010) was performed to find patients with a nonmalignant papillary breast lesion diagnosed at CNB. Of the resulting 128 patients, 86 (67%) underwent surgical excision; 42 (33%) patients were observed with imaging, for a median observation time of 4.1 years (range, 1.0-8.6 years). Chart review was performed to determine pertinent features of each case. RESULTS: Fourteen of 128 patients were subsequently found to have malignancy at excision, for an upstage rate of 11%. Nine (7%) of the 128 patients were subsequently found to have atypia at excision. Comparisons between patients with upstaged lesions and patients whose lesions were not upstaged demonstrated patients with upstaged lesions to be slightly older (65 vs 56 years, P=.01), more likely to have a mass than calcifications at imaging (P=.03), and to have had less tissue obtained at biopsy (three vs five cores obtained, P=.02; 14- vs 9-gauge needle used, P<.01; no vacuum assistance used, P<.01). Most strongly predictive of eventual malignancy, however, was whether the interpreting pathologist qualified the benign diagnosis at CNB with additional commentary (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Given the substantial upstage rate (11%) of papillary lesions diagnosed at imaging-guided CNB, surgical excision is an appropriate management decision; however, careful evaluation in concert with an expert breast pathologist may allow for observation in appropriately selected patients.