A multidisciplinary approach to axillary lymph node staging with ultrasound in the setting of a highly suggestive or suspicious breast mass.

The radiologists' role in axillary imaging in the setting of a suspicious breast mass is evolving in light of the Z0011 trial leading to expected practice variation. The purpose of our project was to generate a standardized algorithm guiding the utilization of axillary ultrasound in the setting of a highly suggestive or highly suspicious breast mass (BI-RADS 4C or 5) without a known cancer diagnosis. The algorithm was created with Z0011 practices in mind while reflecting the clinical preferences of our radiology and surgical teams. The four breast surgeons at our academic institution were individually queried regarding their preferred axillary imaging and biopsy approach. The best practices for axillary imaging were then developed in a breast imaging intradepartmental meeting. There was agreement among the surgical group that the presence of suspicious axillary lymph node (s) on ultrasound could be used for treatment planning and patient discussion but would not be used for surgical planning in most cases. They also agreed that an ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of a suspicious axillary lymph node should be deferred until after surgical consultation. Discussion among our breast radiologists resulted in the consensus that axillary ultrasound in the setting of a BIRADS 4 or 5 mass should be deferred at its initial presentation unless there is palpable lymphadenopathy, suspicious lymph node on mammography, or a tumor is at least stage T3, presumably excluding them from Z0011 criteria. The decision was also made to defer biopsies of suspicious axillary lymph nodes without prior surgical consultation/discussion.

Influences of Radiology Trainees on Screening Mammography Interpretation.

PURPOSE: Participation of radiology trainees in screening mammographic interpretation is a critical component of radiology residency and fellowship training. The aim of this study was to investigate and quantify the effects of trainee involvement on screening mammographic interpretation and diagnostic outcomes. METHODS: Screening mammograms interpreted at an academic medical center by six dedicated breast imagers over a three-year period were identified, with cases interpreted by an attending radiologist alone or in conjunction with a trainee. Trainees included radiology residents, breast imaging fellows, and fellows from other radiology subspecialties during breast imaging rotations. Trainee participation, patient variables, results of diagnostic evaluations, and pathology were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 47,914 mammograms from 34,867 patients were included, with an overall recall rate for attending radiologists reading alone of 14.7% compared with 18.0% when involving a trainee (P < .0001). Overall cancer detection rate for attending radiologists reading alone was 5.7 per 1,000 compared with 5.2 per 1,000 when reading with a trainee (P = .517). When reading with a trainee, dense breasts represented a greater portion of recalls (P = .0001), and more frequently, greater than one abnormality was described in the breast (P = .013). Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ versus invasive carcinoma or invasive cancer type was not significantly different. The mean size of cancers in patients recalled by attending radiologists alone was smaller, and nodal involvement was less frequent, though not statistically significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate a significant overall increase in recall rate when interpreting screening mammograms with radiology trainees, with no change in cancer detection rate. Radiology faculty members should be aware of this potentiality and mitigate tendencies toward greater false positives.