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.

Radial Scars Without Atypia Diagnosed at Percutaneous Core Needle Breast Biopsy: Support for Imaging Surveillance.

Objective: Radial scar (RS) is a low-risk breast lesion that can be associated with or mimic malignancy. Management guidelines remain controversial for patients with RS without atypia on core needle biopsy (CNB). The aim was to evaluate the upgrade rate of these lesions and factors associated with malignancy risk and excision rate to more definitively guide management. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 123 patients with RS without atypia, diagnosed with CNB between January 2008 to December 2014 who were either referred for surgical excision or followed-up with imaging, were reviewed. The differences in clinical presentation, imaging features, and biopsy technique among the benign RS patients and those upgraded, as well as the excised versus the observed patients were compared. Results: Of 123 RS reviewed, 93 cases of RS without atypia as the highest-grade lesion in the ipsilateral breast and with either 24-month imaging follow-up or surgical correlation were included. Seventy-four (79.6%) lesions were surgically excised and 19 (20.4%) were followed-up for at least 24 months. A single upgrade to malignancy (1%) and 15 upgrades to high-risk lesions (16%) were found. There was no association of any upgraded lesion with presenting symptoms or imaging features. The use of vacuum-assistance and larger biopsy needles, along with obtaining a higher number of samples, was associated with fewer upgrades and lower surgical excision rates. Conclusion: The upgrade rate of RS without atypia in our population was low, regardless of the imaging features and biopsy technique utilized. Close imaging surveillance is an acceptable alternative to surgical excision in these patients.

Factors Influential in the Selection of Radiology Residents in the Post-Step 1 World: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 results will transition from a numerical score to a pass or fail result. We sought an objective analysis to determine changes in the relative importance of resident application attributes when numerical Step 1 results are replaced. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was designed to model radiology resident selection and determine the relative weights of various application factors when paired with a numerical or pass or fail Step 1 result. Faculty involved in resident selection at 14 US radiology programs chose between hypothetical pairs of applicant profiles between August and November 2020. A conditional logistic regression model assessed the relative weights of the attributes, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: There were 212 participants. When a numerical Step 1 score was provided, the most influential attributes were medical school (OR: 2.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-2.67), Black or Hispanic race or ethnicity (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.79-2.38), and Step 1 score (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.69-1.95). When Step 1 was reported as pass, the applicant's medical school grew in influence (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 2.42-3.18), and there was a significant increase in influence of Step 2 scores (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.23-1.40 versus OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.46-1.69). There was little change in the relative influence of race or ethnicity, gender, class rank, or clerkship honors. DISCUSSION: When Step 1 reporting transitions to pass or fail, medical school prestige gains outsized influence and Step 2 scores partly fill the gap left by Step 1 examination as a single metric of decisive importance in application decisions.

Benign breast papillomas without atypia diagnosed with core needle biopsy: Outcome of surgical excision and imaging follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical upgrade rate to malignancy and high-risk lesions in cases of papilloma without atypia diagnosed with imaging-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) and to determine whether any lesion imaging features, biopsy techniques, and pathological factors can predict lesion upgrade to help guide clinical management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Benign papillomas without atypia (n = 399) diagnosed with CNB were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical upgrade rate to malignancy or high-risk lesion (atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in-situ, flat epithelial atypia and atypical papilloma) was determined. Detection modality (i.e. mammography, ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)), lesion type and size, biopsy-guidance modality (US, stereotactic, MRI), biopsy needle size (<14 G vs ≥14 G), use of vacuum assistance, and presenting symptoms were statistically analyzed. The reference standard for evaluation of upgrade was either excision or at least 24 months of imaging follow-up. Chi Square test and Fisher exact tests were performed for categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney-U test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS: Ultrasound was the predominant biopsy modality (78.4 %, p < 0.001). Of the 399 benign papilloma lesions in 329 women, 239 (59.9 %) were excised and 93 others were followed for at least 24 months (total of 332). Of these 332 lesions, 7 (2.1 %) were upgraded to ductal carcinoma in-situ and 41 (12.3 %) to high-risk lesions at excision. Larger lesion size (≥15 mm, p = 0.009), smaller biopsy needle size (≥14 G, p = 0.027), and use of spring-loaded biopsy device (p = 0.012) were significantly associated with upgrade to atypia. Only lesion size (≥15 mm, p = 0.02) was associated with upgrade to cancer. CONCLUSION: Upgrade to malignancy of biopsy-proven benign papillomas without atypia at the time of surgery was sufficiently low (2.1 %) to support non-operative management. Surgery may be performed for selected cases- those with larger lesion size and those whose biopsies were performed with smaller spring-loaded biopsy needles.

Impact of Colorized Display of Mammograms on Lesion Detection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the colorized display of digital mammograms on observer detection of subtle breast lesions. METHODS: Three separate observer studies compared detection performance using grayscale versus color display of 1) low-contrast mass-like objects in a standardized mammography phantom; 2) simulated microcalcifications in a background of normal breast parenchyma; and 3) standard-of-care clinical digital mammograms with subtle calcifications and masses. Colorization of the images was done by displaying each image pixel in blue, green, and red hues, or gray, maintaining DICOM-calibrated luminance scale and consistent luminance range. For the simulated calcifications and clinical mammogram studies, comparison of detection rates was computed using McNemar's test for paired differences. RESULTS: For the phantom study, mass-like object detection was significantly better using a green colormap than grayscale (73.3% vs 70.8%, P = .009), with no significant improvement using blue or red colormaps (72.6% and 72.5%, respectively). For simulated microcalcifications, no significant difference was noted in detection using the green colormap, as compared with grayscale. For clinical digital screening mammograms, no significant difference was noted between gray and green colormaps for detection of microcalcifications. Green color display, however, resulted in decreased sensitivity for detection of subtle masses (63% vs 69%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Although modest improvement was demonstrated for a detection task using colorized display of a standard mammography phantom, no significant improvement was demonstrated using a color display for a simulated clinical detection task, and actual clinical performance was worse for colorized display of mammograms in comparison to standard grayscale display.

Frequency of Breast Cancer Thoughts and Lifetime Risk Estimates: A Multi-Institutional Survey of Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify women's personal estimates of breast cancer risk and frequency of breast cancer thoughts. METHODS: Women from five medical centers were surveyed before their screening mammographic examinations. Participants were queried on their baseline anxiety and demographics, then asked how many times in the past month they had thought about developing breast cancer. Participants were then notified of the 12% lifetime average breast cancer risk and asked to estimate their personal risk both subjectively and objectively. Comparisons were made between responses and the demographic variables. RESULTS: There were 2,747 completed surveys for analysis. Women reported 2.5 ± 6.6 thoughts of cancer on average in the prior month. More frequent thoughts were associated with personal or family history of breast cancer, greater anxiety, and genetic testing (P < .001 for all). Among women without cancer risk factors (n = 1,412), there were 1.4 cancer thoughts per month, which was associated with baseline anxiety (P < .001). The median lifetime breast cancer risk was 12% among all women, with 37.4% high risk (>20%) estimates. Demographic variables associated with increased risk estimates were previous cancer diagnosis, higher education, genetic testing, white race, increased age, and greater anxiety (P < .01 for all). Among women with no risk factors, the median estimated risk was 10%, with 16.7% providing estimates greater than 20%, associated with baseline anxiety and white race (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Increased breast cancer thoughts and personal cancer estimates are associated with specific patient demographics. Improved understanding of patient perspectives could improve shared decision-making discussions and thus patient care.

Patient Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risk in Imaging-Detected Low-Risk Scenarios and Thresholds for Desired Intervention: A Multi-Institution Survey.

PURPOSE: To determine women's perceptions of breast cancer risk and thresholds for desiring biopsy when considering BI-RADS 3 and 4A scenarios and recommendations, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women presenting for screening mammography from five geographically diverse medical centers were surveyed. Demographic information and baseline anxiety were queried. Participants were presented with scenarios of short-term imaging follow-up recommendations (ie, BI-RADS 3) and biopsy recommendations (ie, BI-RADS 4A) for low-risk mammographic abnormalities and asked to estimate their breast cancer risk for each scenario. Participants reported the threshold (ie, likelihood of cancer) where they would feel comfortable undergoing short-term imaging follow-up and biopsy and their anticipated regret for choosing short-term follow-up versus biopsy. RESULTS: Analysis of 2,747 surveys showed that participants estimated breast cancer risk of 32.8% for a BI-RADS 3 and 41.1% for a BI-RADS 4A scenarios are significantly greater rates than clinically established rates (<2% [P < .001] and 2%-10% [P < .001], respectively). Over one-half (55.4%) of participants reported they would never want imaging follow-up if there was any chance of cancer; two-thirds (66.2%) reported they would desire biopsy if there was any chance of cancer. Participants reported greater anticipated regret (P < .001) and less relief and confidence (P < .001) with the decision to undergo follow-up imaging versus biopsy. CONCLUSION: Women overestimate breast cancer risk associated with both BI-RADS 3 and 4A scenarios and desire very low biopsy thresholds. Greater anticipated regret and less relief and confidence was reported with the choice to undergo short-term imaging follow-up compared with biopsy.