Unnecessary Explantation of IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline Breast Implants Prompted byRadiologic Misdiagnosis of Rupture.

ABSTRACT: The unique dual-lumen and baffle design of the IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Saline breast implant gives it specific advantages over both silicone gel-filled and the original saline-filled implants. This internal baffle structure also gives it an appearance on various radiologic imaging studies that may be misinterpreted as a rupture because of similarities to the well-known radiologic appearance of a ruptured silicone gel implant. Patients may present with various misinterpreted imaging studies, highlighting the need for plastic surgeons and radiologists to be familiar with the normal appearance of the intact IDEAL IMPLANT and be able to distinguish it from a ruptured IDEAL IMPLANT. The radiology findings must be correlated with the clinical findings, or an intact IDEAL IMPLANT misdiagnosed as ruptured, may cause unnecessary patient worry, and may prompt unnecessary surgery for removal or replacement.

Artificial Intelligence Decision Support for Triple-Negative Breast Cancers on Ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To assess performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) decision support software in assessing and recommending biopsy of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) on US. METHODS: Retrospective institutional review board-approved review identified patients diagnosed with TNBC after US-guided biopsy between 2009 and 2019. Artificial intelligence output for TNBCs on diagnostic US included lesion features (shape, orientation) and likelihood of malignancy category (benign, probably benign, suspicious, and probably malignant). Artificial intelligence true positive was defined as suspicious or probably malignant and AI false negative (FN) as benign or probably benign. Artificial intelligence and radiologist lesion feature agreement, AI and radiologist sensitivity and FN rate (FNR), and features associated with AI FNs were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square test of independence, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: The study included 332 patients with 345 TNBCs. Artificial intelligence and radiologists demonstrated moderate agreement for lesion shape and orientation (k = 0.48 and k = 0.47, each P <.001). On the set of examinations using 6 earlier diagnostic US, radiologists recommended biopsy of 339/345 lesions (sensitivity 98.3%, FNR 1.7%), and AI recommended biopsy of 333/345 lesions (sensitivity 96.5%, FNR 3.5%), including 6/6 radiologist FNs. On the set of examinations using immediate prebiopsy diagnostic US, AI recommended biopsy of 331/345 lesions (sensitivity 95.9%, FNR 4.1%). Artificial intelligence FNs were more frequently oval (q < 0.001), parallel (q < 0.001), circumscribed (q = 0.04), and complex cystic and solid (q = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence accurately recommended biopsies for 96% to 97% of TNBCs on US and may assist radiologists in classifying these lesions, which often demonstrate benign sonographic features.

The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography After Cryoablation of Breast Cancer.

Image-guided cryoablation is an emerging therapeutic technique for the treatment of breast cancer and is a treatment strategy that is an effective alternate to surgery in select patients. Tumor features impacting the efficacy of cryoablation include size, location in relation to skin, and histology (e.g., extent of intraductal component), underscoring the importance of imaging for staging and workup in this patient population. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) utilization is increasing in both the screening and diagnostic settings and may be useful for follow-up imaging after breast cancer cryoablation, given its high sensitivity for cancer detection and its advantages in terms of PPV, time, cost, eligibility, and accessibility compared with contrast-enhanced MRI. This Clinical Perspective describes the novel use of CEM after breast cancer cryoablation, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of CEM compared with alternate imaging modalities, expected benign postablation CEM findings, and CEM findings suggestive of residual or recurrent tumor.

Artificial intelligence in breast ultrasound: application in clinical practice.

Ultrasound (US) is a widely accessible and extensively used tool for breast imaging. It is commonly used as an additional screening tool, especially for women with dense breast tissue. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of various AI systems that assist radiologists in identifying and diagnosing breast lesions using US. This article provides an overview of the background and supporting evidence for the use of AI in hand held breast US. It discusses the impact of AI on clinical workflow, covering breast cancer detection, diagnosis, prediction of molecular subtypes, evaluation of axillary lymph node status, and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the article highlights the potential significance of AI in breast US for low and middle income countries.

MRI scarcity in low- and middle-income countries.

Since the introduction of MRI as a sustainable diagnostic modality, global accessibility to its services has revealed a wide discrepancy between populations-leaving most of the population in LMICs without access to this important imaging modality. Several factors lead to the scarcity of MRI in LMICs; for example, inadequate infrastructure and the absence of a dedicated workforce are key factors in the scarcity observed. RAD-AID has contributed to the advancement of radiology globally by collaborating with our partners to make radiology more accessible for medically underserved communities. However, progress is slow and further investment is needed to ensure improved global access to MRI.

A role for breast ultrasound Artificial Intelligence decision support in the evaluation of small invasive lobular carcinomas.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) decision support (DS) system in the ultrasound (US) assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast, a cancer that can demonstrate variable appearance and present insidiously. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 75 patients with 83 ILC diagnosed by core biopsy or surgery between November 2017 and November 2019. ILC characteristics (size, shape, echogenicity) were recorded. AI DS output (lesion characteristics, likelihood of malignancy) was compared to radiologist assessment. RESULTS: The AI DS system interpreted 100% of ILCs as suspicious or probably malignant (100% sensitivity, and 0% false negative rate). 99% (82/83) of detected ILCs were initially recommended for biopsy by the interpreting breast radiologist, and 100% (83/83) were recommended for biopsy after one additional ILC was identified on same-day repeat diagnostic ultrasound. For lesions in which the AI DS output was probably malignant, but assigned a BI-RADS 4 assessment by the radiologist, the median lesion size was 1 cm, compared with a median lesion size of 1.4 cm for those given a BI-RADS 5 assessment (p = 0.006). These results suggest that AI may offer more useful DS in smaller sub-centimeter lesions in which shape, margin status, or vascularity is more difficult to discern. Only 20% of patients with ILC were assigned a BI-RADS 5 assessment by the radiologist. CONCLUSION: The AI DS accurately characterized 100% of detected ILC lesions as suspicious or probably malignant. AI DS may be helpful in increasing radiologist confidence when assessing ILC on ultrasound.

Impact of High Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation on Access to Accredited Breast Imaging Screening and Diagnostic Facilities.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence or absence of accredited breast imaging facilities in ZIP codes with high or low neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: A retrospective ecological study design was used. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage rankings at the ZIP code level were defined by the University of Wisconsin Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index. Outcomes included the presence or absence of FDA- or ACR-accredited mammographic facilities, accredited stereotactic biopsy or breast ultrasound facilities, and ACR Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence. US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes were used to define urban and rural status. Access to breast imaging facilities in high-disadvantage (≥97th percentile) and low-disadvantage (≤3rd percentile) ZIP codes was compared using χ2 tests, stratified by urban or rural status. RESULTS: Among 41,683 ZIP codes, 2,796 were classified as high disadvantage (1,160 rural, 1,636 urban) and 1,028 as low disadvantage (39 rural, 989 urban). High-disadvantage ZIP codes were more likely rural (P < .001) and less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (28% versus 35%, P < .001), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (7% versus 15%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (9% versus 23%, P < .001), or Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (7% versus 16%, P < .001). Among urban areas, high-disadvantage ZIP codes were less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (30% versus 36%, P = .002), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (10% versus 16%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (13% versus 23%, P < .001), and Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (10% versus 16%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: People living in ZIP codes with high socioeconomic disadvantage are less likely to have accredited breast imaging facilities within their ZIP codes, which may contribute to disparities in access to breast cancer care experienced by underserved groups living in these areas.

Feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography in women with breast implants.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) may provide an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic exam in women with known or suspected breast cancer or as a screening exam in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Women with breast augmentation, either for oncologic or cosmetic reasons, may fall into this increased risk population and need safe and effective screening and diagnostic imaging tools. Here, we present our clinical practice data in order to demonstrate the feasibility of CEM in women with breast implants. An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective review of our tertiary cancer center's database yielded 104 women with breast implants who underwent 198 CEM exams from November 2014 to March 2020. All 198/198 (100%) exams were successfully completed in 104 women. Exam indications included: 174/198 (88%) screening due to increased risk, 10/198 (5%) to evaluate a palpable abnormality, 9/198 (<5%) to evaluate disease extent following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for a known breast malignancy, and 5/198 (<3%) for a 6-month follow-up. 97/104 (93%) women had dense breasts. Routine and implant-displaced low-energy views were obtained with contrast-enhanced images obtained on displaced views for all patients. 197/198 (99.5%) exams yielded no complications. In one exam, the patient experienced mild vasovagal symptoms following the administration of contrast. In conclusion, it is feasible to utilize CEM in both diagnostic and screening capacities in women with breast implants.

A Diagnostic Dilemma: New Enhancing Suspicious Findings on Breast MRI Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the incidence and outcome of new enhancing findings on breast MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective review included women with breast cancer undergoing MRI to evaluate NAC response at our institution from January 1, 1998 to March 3, 2021. Post-NAC MRIs given BI-RADS 4 or 5 with new enhancing findings were identified. Patients were excluded if they lacked pretreatment MRI or insufficient follow-up, or if the finding was a satellite of the primary tumor. Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed to identify patients and to find characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Over the study period, 2880 post-NAC breast MRIs were performed. Of 128 post-NAC MRIs given BI-RADS 4 or 5 (4.4%), 35 new suspicious findings were found on 32 MRIs, incidence rate 1.1% (32/2880). Most were characterized as nonmass enhancement (17/35, 49%), followed by mass (11/35, 31%), and then focus (7/35, 20%), with an average maximum dimension of 1.3 cm (range 0.3-7.1 cm). New findings were ipsilateral to the index cancer in 20/35 (57%) of cases. Of the 35 suspicious findings, 22 underwent image-guided biopsy (62%), 1 was surgically excised (3%), 7 underwent mastectomy (20%), 5 were stable or resolved on follow-up (8%), and none were malignant. Thirty-three were benign (94%), and two were benign high-risk lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia, radial scar) (6%). CONCLUSION: New suspicious breast MRI findings after NAC are uncommon with a low likelihood of malignancy. Further study is warranted using multi-institutional data for this low incidence finding.

Breast cancer diagnosis in Inner-City African American and Hispanic women: The importance of early screening.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnosis of breast cancer in inner-city African-American and Hispanic women under age 50 to support the importance of screening in this population. METHODS: This retrospective chart review included women newly diagnosed with breast cancer from 1/1/2015 to 1/1/2019 in a city hospital mainly serving minority patients. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: In this cohort of 108 newly diagnosed African-American (63%) and Hispanic (31%) women, 60/108 (56%) presented with a site of palpable concern for diagnostic workup, and the remaining were diagnosed via asymptomatic screening. Women ages 30-49 were significantly more likely to present with a site of palpable concern when compared to women ages 50-69 (68% vs. 44%, p = 0.045). Additionally, women ages 30-49 were more likely to have triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) than women ages 50-69 (20% vs. 10%, p = 0.222). However, women ages 30-49 were less likely to have prior mammogram than women ages 50-69 (24% vs. 46%, p = 0.062). CONCLUSION: African-American and Hispanic women ages 30-49 were more likely to present with a site of palpable concern and TNBC than those ages 50-69. However, these young minority women ages 30-49 were less likely to have prior screening mammograms when compared to those ages 50-69. Our data highlights the importance of starting screening mammography no later than age 40 in African-American and Hispanic women. In addition, these women should have risk assessment for breast cancer no later than age 30 and be screened appropriately.

The iBreastExam versus clinical breast examination for breast evaluation in high risk and symptomatic Nigerian women: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The iBreastExam electronically palpates the breast to identify possible abnormalities. We assessed the iBreastExam performance compared with clinical breast examination for breast lesion detection in high risk and symptomatic Nigerian women. METHODS: This prospective study was done at the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex (OAUTHC) in Nigeria. Participants were Nigerian women aged 40 years or older who were symptomatic and presented with breast cancer symptoms or those at high risk with a first-degree relative who had a history of breast cancer. Participants underwent four breast examinations: clinical breast examination (by an experienced surgeon), the iBreastExam (performed by recent nursing school graduates, who finished nursing school within the previous year), ultrasound, and mammography. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of the iBreastExam and clinical breast examination for detecting any breast lesion and suspicious breast lesions were calculated, using mammography and ultrasound as the reference standard. FINDINGS: Between June 19 and Dec 5, 2019, 424 Nigerian women were enrolled (151 [36%] at high risk of breast cancer and 273 [64%] symptomatic women). The median age of participants was 46 years (IQR 42-52). 419 (99%) women had a breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) assessment and were included in the analysis. For any breast finding, the iBreastExam showed significantly better sensitivity than clinical breast examination (63%, 95% CI 57-69 vs 31%, 25-37; p<0·0001), and clinical breast examination showed significantly better specificity (94%, 90-97 vs 59%, 52-66; p<0·0001). For suspicious breast findings, the iBreastExam showed similar sensitivity to clinical breast examination (86%, 95% CI 70-95 vs 83%, 67-94; p=0·65), and clinical breast examination showed significantly better specificity (50%, 45-55 vs 86%, 83-90; p<0·0001). The iBreastExam and clinical breast examination showed similar NPVs for any breast finding (56%, 49-63 vs 52%, 46-57; p=0·080) and suspicious findings (98%, 94-99 vs 98%, 96-99; p=0·42), whereas the PPV was significantly higher for clinical breast examination in any breast finding (87%, 77-93 vs 66%, 59-72; p<0·0001) and suspicious findings (37%, 26-48 vs 14%, 10-19; p=0·0020). Of 15 biopsy-confirmed cancers, clinical breast examination and the iBreastExam detected an ipsilateral breast abnormality in 13 (87%) women and missed the same two cancers (both <2 cm). INTERPRETATION: The iBreastExam by nurses showed a high sensitivity and NPV, but lower specificity than surgeon's clinical breast examination for identifying suspicious breast lesions. In locations with few experienced practitioners, the iBreastExam might provide a high sensitivity breast evaluation tool. Further research into improved specificity with device updates and cost feasibility in low-resource settings is warranted. FUNDING: Prevent Cancer Foundation Global Community Grant Award with additional support from the P30 Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748).

Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) is being rapidly adopted to harness the high sensitivity of screening MRI while addressing issues related to access, cost, and workflow. The successful implementation of an AB-MRI program requires collaboration across administrative, operational, financial, technical, and clinical providers. Institutions must be thoughtful in defining patient eligibility for AB-MRI and providing recommendations for screening intervals, as existing practices are heterogeneous. Similarly, there is no universally accepted AB-MRI protocol, though guiding principles should harmonize abbreviated and full protocols while being mindful of scan duration and amount of time patients spend on the MRI table. The interpretation of AB-MRI will be a new experience for many radiologists and may require a phased rollout and a careful audit of performance metrics over time to ensure benchmark metrics are achieved. AB-MRI finances, which are driven by patient self-payment, will require buy-in from hospital administration with the recognition that downstream revenues will be needed to support initial costs. Finally, successful startup of an AB-MRI program requires active engagement with the larger community of patients and referring providers. As AB-MRI becomes more widely accepted and available, best practices and community standards will continue to evolve to ensure high-quality patient care.

Abbreviated Breast MRI Utilization: A Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To survey Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) membership on their use of abbreviated breast MRI to understand variability in practice patterns. METHODS: A survey was developed by the SBI Patient Care and Delivery committee for distribution to SBI membership in July and August 2021. Eighteen questions queried practice demographics and then abbreviated breast MRI practices regarding initial adoption, scheduling and finances, MRI protocols, and interpretations. Comparisons between responses were made by practice demographics. RESULTS: There were 321 respondents (response rate: 15.3%), of whom 25% (81/321) currently offer and 26% (84/321) plan to offer abbreviated breast MRI. Practices in the South (37/107, 35%) and Midwest (22/70, 31%) were more likely to offer abbreviated MRI (P = 0.005). Practices adopted many strategies to raise awareness, most directed at referring providers. The mean charge to patients was $414, and only 6% of practices offer financial support. The median time slot for studies is 20 minutes, with only 15% of practices using block scheduling of consecutive breast MRIs. Regarding MRI protocols, 64% (37/58) of respondents included only a single first-pass post-contrast sequence, and 90% (52/58) included T2-weighted sequences. Patient eligibility was highly varied, and a majority of respondents (37/58, 64%) do not provide any recommendations for screening intervals in non-high-risk women. CONCLUSION: Abbreviated breast MRI utilization is growing rapidly, and practices are applying a variety of strategies to facilitate adoption. Although there is notable variability in patient eligibility, follow-up intervals, and costs, there is some agreement regarding abbreviated breast MRI protocols.

Palpable Lumps after Mastectomy: Radiologic-Pathologic Review of Benign and Malignant Masses.

Patients who have undergone mastectomy, with or without reconstruction, are not universally screened with mammography or US. Therefore, clinical breast examination by the physician and patient-detected palpable abnormalities are crucial for detecting breast cancer or recurrence. Diagnostic US is the first-line modality for evaluation of postmastectomy palpable masses, with occasional adjunct use of diagnostic mammography for confirming certain benign masses. In the setting of a negative initial imaging evaluation with continued clinical concern, diagnostic MRI may aid in improving sensitivity. Knowledge of the typical multimodality imaging appearances and locations of malignant palpable abnormalities-such as invasive carcinoma recurrence, cancer in residual breast tissue, radiation-induced sarcoma, and metastatic disease-is crucial in diagnosis and treatment of these entities. In addition, familiarity with the range of benign palpable postmastectomy processes-including fat necrosis, fat graft, seroma, granuloma, neuroma, fibrosis, and infection-may help avoid unnecessary biopsies and reassure patients. The authors review common and rare benign and malignant palpable masses in mastectomy patients, describe multimodality diagnostic imaging evaluation of each entity, review radiologic and pathologic correlation, and acquaint the radiologist with management when these findings are encountered. ©RSNA, 2021.

Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography.

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in conjunction with digital mammography (DM) is becoming the preferred imaging modality for breast cancer screening compared with DM alone, on the basis of improved recall rates (RR) and cancer detection rates (CDRs). The aim of this study was to investigate racial differences in the utilization and performance of screening modality. METHODS: Retrospective data from 63 US breast imaging facilities from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Screening outcomes were linked to cancer registries. RR, CDR per 1,000 examinations, and positive predictive value for recall (cancers/recalled patients) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 385,503 women contributed 542,945 DBT and 261,359 DM screens. A lower proportion of screenings for Black women were performed using DBT plus DM (referred to as DBT) (44% for Black, 48% for other, 63% for Asian, and 61% for White). Non-White women were less likely to undergo more than one mammographic examination. RRs were lower for DBT among all women (8.74 versus 10.06, P < .05) and lower across all races and within age categories. RRs were significantly higher for women with only one mammogram. CDRs were similar or higher in women undergoing DBT compared with DM, overall (4.73 versus 4.60, adjusted P = .0005) and by age and race. Positive predictive value for recall was greater for DBT overall (5.29 versus 4.45, adjusted P < .0001) and by age, race, and screening frequency. CONCLUSIONS: All racial groups had improved outcomes with DBT screening, but disparities were observed in DBT utilization. These data suggest that reducing inequities in DBT utilization may improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

Presentation of self-detected breast mass in minority women with limited access to care: Can self-examination assist in early cancer detection?

OBJECTIVE: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends against breast self-examination. However, racial disparities exist in mammogram screening. We aimed to evaluate the presentation of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the underserved African-American and Hispanic community to provide insight regarding breast cancer screening in this population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included women newly diagnosed with breast cancer from 1/1/2016 to 1/1/2018 in an inner city public community hospital. Data was collected via chart review. Patients were divided based on whether they presented with self-detected breast mass. Logistic regression was used for analysis. RESULTS: 59 women were newly diagnosed with breast cancer. 34 women (58%) were African-American, 20 (34%) were Hispanic, and 5 (8%) were other race. Of 59 women, 36 (61%) presented with self-detected breast mass, and only 21 (36%) reported prior mammography. For women who presented with breast mass, the odds of having prior mammography were 78% lower (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.69, p = 0.009), while the odds of having invasive ductal carcinoma were 4.33 times higher (OR = 4.33, 95% CI 1.09-17.25, p = 0.037), as compared to the odds for women not presenting with breast mass. CONCLUSION: Many of our newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were African-American or Hispanic women presenting with self-detected breast mass without prior screening mammography. Further studies should evaluate whether supplemental screening methods, such as breast self-examination or clinical examination, can help with early breast cancer detection in minority women with limited access to care, and such disparities should be considered by organizations when creating screening guidelines.