The effect of curcuma longa extract and significance of mordant as an alternative for eosin in H and E: A comparative study.

Background and Aim: Hematoxylin and Eosin (H and E) staining is a common and routine staining method used in Histopathology. In origin, Hematoxylin is natural and Eosin is a synthetic dye. Synthetic dyes are widely accepted due to its staining efficiency. However, due to synthetic and toxic properties, natural alternatives have gained importance. In this present study, Curcuma Longa rhizome (Turmeric) extract with and without mordant are examined as a natural substitute for Eosin in H and E staining. This study assessed the staining quality of Turmeric (H and T) compared to Eosin (H and E) and the significance of mordant in H and T staining. Materials and Methods: A comparative study is conducted in a Histopathology laboratory in a tertiary care hospital. Five tissue specimens were collected and stained with H and T with mordant, H and T without mordant, and conventional H and E stain. Two independent pathologists examined the quality of each stain. The results are graded as excellent, good, and poor. These results are statistically compared and analyzed. Result: Staining quality of Turmeric and Eosin are comparable to each other. At the same time, Turmeric gives yellow color instead of pink in Eosin. The result also shows that the addition of mordant in Turmeric significantly improves the staining quality. Interpretation and Conclusion: Turmeric with mordant can be used as an alternative stain to synthetic Eosin in H and E staining.

Establishing a Unique, Single Cutoff Value for Body Frame Size for Screening for Risk of Hypertension in Indian Children and Adolescents-A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the strength of association of two measures of BFS: frame-size one (FS1; height ÷ wrist circumference) and frame-size two (FS2; elbow breadth), with body-fat indices, body composition, and hypertension in Indian children and adolescents, and to determine age and sex-specific cutoffs of BFS to predict hypertension. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multicenter, school-based study in 9- to 18-y-old healthy children (n = 1423) randomly selected from 3 Indian states. Based on tertiles, FS1 and FS2 were categorized as small, medium, and large. RESULTS: Greater BFS (both FS1 and FS2) was associated with higher body-fat indices, BP (r = -0.424 for FS1 and r = 0.282 for FS2, p < 0.01) and lower muscle mass (MM). A significantly greater percentage of children classified as having large BFS according to FS1 were found to be overweight/obese (46% vs. 25%), hypertensive (34% vs. 17%) than FS2 (p < 0.01). FS1 showed strong to very strong association (Cramer's V 0.15 to > 0.25) with body-fat indices, MM, and BP as opposed to FS2 (For BP X2 = 120.9 for FS1 vs. 9.06 for FS2). FS1 better identified obesity and hypertension, and a value of 10.6 was determined to be the optimum cutoff for predicting hypertension in both genders (sensitivity 71%, specificity 75%, AUC 0.795, and NPV 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Height-to-wrist circumference is a novel, simple, and precise BFS measure for predicting hypertension and muscle mass (9-18 y) and a single cutoff value (< 10.6) may contribute to rapid screening and prompt identification of children at risk of hypertension.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI in the Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is rapidly expanding as a credible alternative to MRI in various clinical settings. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CEM and MRI for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) response assessment in patients with breast cancer. METHODS. This prospective study included 51 patients (mean age, 46 ± 11 [SD] years) with biopsy-proven breast cancer who were candidates for NAT from May 2015 to April 2018. Patients underwent both CEM and MRI before, during, and after NAT (pre-NAT, mid-NAT, and post-NAT, respectively). Post-NAT CEM included a 6-minute delayed acquisition. One breast radiologist with experience in CEM reviewed CEM examinations; one breast radiologist with experience in MRI reviewed MRI examinations. The radiologists assessed for the presence of an enhancing lesion; if an enhancing lesion was detected, its size was measured. RECIST version 1.1 response assessment categories were derived. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). RESULTS. Of 51 patients, 16 achieved pCR. CEM yielded systematically lower size measurements compared with MRI (mean difference, -0.2 mm for pre-NAT, -0.7 mm for mid-NAT, and -0.3 mm for post-NAT). All post-NAT imaging tests yielded systematically larger size measurements compared with pathology (mean difference, 0.8 mm for CEM, 1.2 mm for MRI, and 1.9 mm for delayed CEM). Of 12 patients with residual DCIS, an enhancing lesion was detected in seven on post-NAT CEM, eight on post-NAT MRI, and nine on post-NAT delayed CEM. Agreement of RECIST response categories between CEM and MRI, expressed as kappa coefficient, was 0.791 at mid-NAT and 0.871 at post-NAT. For detecting pCR by post-NAT imaging, sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 83% for CEM, 100% and 86% for MRI, and 81% and 89% for delayed CEM. Sensitivity was significantly higher for MRI than CEM (p = .001) and delayed CEM (p = .002); remaining comparisons were not significant (p > .05). CONCLUSION. After NAT for breast cancer, CEM and MRI yielded comparable assessments of lesion size (both slightly overestimated vs pathology) and RECIST categories and showed no significant difference in specificity for pCR. MRI had higher sensitivity for pCR. Delayed CEM acquisition may help detect residual DCIS. CLINICAL IMPACT. Although MRI remains the preferred test for NAT response monitoring, the findings support CEM as a useful alternative when MRI is contraindicated or not tolerated.

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making.

Complications of intravascular intrauterine transfusion for Rh alloimmunization.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular intrauterine transfusion (IUT) is considered a safe procedure, but complications still occur, including fatalities. OBJECTIVE: Review the outcomes of Rh alloimmunization, including indications and possible complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort (medical record review). SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrieved the records for all mothers who had an IUT for Rh alloimmunization between January 2009 and August 2019. We collected data on complications, post-transfusion hemoglobin and antibody combinations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Complications of IUT. SAMPLE SIZE: 119 mothers with 154 fetuses (154 different pregnancies). RESULTS: The 154 fetuses had 560 intrauterine transfusions. The median pre-IUT hemoglobin was a median of 8.0 g/dL while the median post-IUT hemoglobin 16 g/dL. Immediate procedure-related complications included fetal bradycardia in 2.7%, significant bleeding from the cord puncture site (for more than 2 minutes in 0.9%), and contractions in 0.9%. Eight (5.2%) were delivered by cesarean delivery due to IUT-specific complications such as post-procedure fetal bradycardia. Intrauterine fetal death complicated 8.4% of the pregnancies (13 fetuses). Phototherapy was required in 76 (49.4%), postnatal blood transfusions in 17 (11%), and exchange transfusion in 11 (7.1%). Neonatal death occurred 8 (5.2%). Data were insufficient to assess associations of complications with antibody combinations. CONCLUSIONS: Intrauterine transfusion is an effective treatment with high survival rates (around 90% for cases of Rh alloimmunization). LIMITATIONS: Case series. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative.

In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars. DISCLOSURES: The study reported on in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant that was awarded by Sandoz Inc., a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education, LLC. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist with participant recruitment and content review for the continuing education program. Bandekar, Cheifetz, Edgar, Helfgott, Hoye-Simek, Liu, and Smith received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. Cheifetz has received research grants from Inform Diagnostics and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bacainn, BMS, Grifols, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Samsung, and Takeda unrelated to this work. Smith has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, has served as an investigator on industry-initiated trials for AbbVie and Pfizer, and has served as an investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Novartis and Regeneron. Carter, Fajardo, and Simone have nothing to disclose.

Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.

Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) provides recommendations for breast care provision and procedural prioritization during COVID-19 pandemic, being aware that medical decisions must be currently taken balancing patient's individual and community safety: (1) patients having a scheduled or to-be-scheduled appointment for in-depth diagnostic breast imaging or needle biopsy should confirm the appointment or obtain a new one; (2) patients who have suspicious symptoms of breast cancer (in particular: new onset palpable nodule; skin or nipple retraction; orange peel skin; unilateral secretion from the nipple) should request non-deferrable tests at radiology services; (3) asymptomatic women performing annual mammographic follow-up after breast cancer treatment should preferably schedule the appointment within 1 year and 3 months from the previous check, compatibly with the local organizational conditions; (4) asymptomatic women who have not responded to the invitation for screening mammography after the onset of the pandemic or have been informed of the suspension of the screening activity should schedule the check preferably within 3 months from the date of the not performed check, compatibly with local organizational conditions. The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM recommends precautions to protect both patients and healthcare workers (radiologists, radiographers, nurses, and reception staff) from infection or disease spread on the occasion of breast imaging procedures, particularly mammography, breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and breast intervention procedures.

Solving the preoperative breast MRI conundrum: design and protocol of the MIPA study.

Despite its high diagnostic performance, the use of breast MRI in the preoperative setting is controversial. It has the potential for personalized surgical management in breast cancer patients, but two of three randomized controlled trials did not show results in favor of its introduction for assessing the disease extent before surgery. Meta-analyses showed a higher mastectomy rate in women undergoing preoperative MRI compared to those who do not. Nevertheless, preoperative breast MRI is increasingly used and a survey from the American Society of Breast Surgeons showed that 41% of respondents ask for it in daily practice. In this context, a large-scale observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA study) was proposed under the guidance of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). The aims were (1) to prospectively and systematically collect data on consecutive women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer, not candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, who are offered or not offered breast MRI before surgery according to local practice; (2) to compare these two groups in terms of surgical and clinical endpoints, adjusting for covariates. The underlying hypotheses are that MRI does not cause additional mastectomies compared to conventional imaging, while reducing the reoperation rate in all or in subgroups of patients. Ninety-six centers applied to a web-based call; 36 were initially selected based on volume and quality standards; 27 were active for enrollment. On November 2018, the target of 7000 enrolled patients was reached. The MIPA study is presently at the analytic phase. Key Points • Breast MRI has a high diagnostic performance but its utility in the preoperative setting is controversial. • A large-scale observational multicenter prospective study was launched to compare women receiving with those not receiving preoperative MRI. • Twenty-seven centers enrolled more than 7000 patients. The study is presently at the analytic phase.

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as "high-risk" or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Paradoxical Response of Parathyroid Hormone to Vitamin D-Calcium Supplementation in Indian Children.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of oral vitamin D-calcium supplementation on serum intact parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium, phosphorous, and alkaline phosphatase (ALK-P) concentrations in children with habitually low calcium intakes. STUDY DESIGN: In this follow-up study to a randomized controlled trial that aimed to assess the effect of vitamin D-calcium supplementation on immunity, data related to dietary intake, anthropometry, and biochemistry [serum 25(OH)D and bone profile] were collected from 178 children-79 in the vitamin D group and 99 in the non-vitamin D group. RESULTS: Dietary calcium to phosphorus intake ratio was 0.4:1. Baseline serum 25(OH)D concentration was 58.2 ± 10.9 nmol/L; 66% children were vitamin D sufficient and none deficient. After supplementation, vitamin D group, compared with the non-vitamin D group, had significantly (P < .05) greater 25(OH)D (83.9 ± 30.1 nmol/L vs 58.3 ± 15.7 nmol/L), significantly greater PTH (6.7 ± 3.6 pmol/L vs 5.5 ± 3.2 pmol/L), and positive correlation (rs = 0.24) between serum 25(OH)D and PTH (vs negative correlation [rs = -0.1] in non-vitamin D group). Mean concentrations of serum bone measures in the vitamin D group were calcium (2.2 ± 0.1 mmol/L), phosphorus (1.7 ± 0.2 mmol/L), and ALK-P (178.7 ± 40.7 IU/L). At follow-up, 1-year post-supplementation, in the vitamin D group, PTH concentrations continued to remain high (but not significantly different from levels at 6 months), with low normal serum calcium, high normal phosphate, and ALK-P in reference range. CONCLUSIONS: In children who are vitamin D sufficient but with habitually low dietary calcium intake, vitamin D-calcium supplementation paradoxically and significantly increased serum PTH concentrations with no apparent effect on other bone biochemistry. Chronic low dietary calcium to phosphorus ratio is likely to have caused this paradoxical response.

Serum uric acid as a marker of disease risk, severity, and survival in systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary arterial hypertension.

The object of this paper is to assess associations between serum uric acid (UA) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) risk, disease severity, and mortality in a well-characterized cohort of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients referred for evaluation of possible PAH. Consecutive SSc patients aged >18 years with serum UA drawn within two weeks of a diagnostic right heart catheterization (RHC) were included. Associations between baseline serum UA and PAH at RHC were examined using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. Relationships between UA levels and metrics of disease severity were assessed using Pearson and Spearman correlation. Associations between UA and survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard modeling. A total of 162 SSc patients were included; 82 received a diagnosis of PAH at RHC. Patients found to have PAH had significantly higher UA than those without PAH. Elevated baseline UA was associated with significantly increased odds of PAH diagnosis at RHC (odds ratio [OR] = 4.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.11-7.87, P < 0.001). Each mg/dL higher UA was associated with a 14% increase in mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02-1.28, P < 0.05). In multivariable models adjusting for potential confounders of the relationship between UA and survival, UA > 6.3 mg/dL remained significantly associated with increased mortality (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.02-3.32, P < 0.05). Among SSc patients with suspected PAH, elevated serum UA is associated with increased risk of SSc-PAH. Among individuals diagnosed with SSc-PAH by RHC, UA is associated with disease severity and survival. These results indicate UA is a useful predictor of PAH risk and prognosis in SSc.

Validation of the REVEAL Prognostic Equation and Risk Score Calculator in Incident Systemic Sclerosis-Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: A prognostic equation and risk score calculator derived from the Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-term Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Disease Management (REVEAL) are being used to predict 1-year survival in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but little is known about the performance of these REVEAL survival prediction tools in systemic sclerosis (SSc)-associated PAH (SSc-PAH). METHODS: Prospectively gathered data from the Johns Hopkins Pulmonary Hypertension Program and Pulmonary Hypertension Assessment and Recognition of Outcome in Scleroderma Registries were used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the REVEAL models for predicting the probability of 1-year survival in patients with SSc-PAH. Model discrimination was assessed by comparison of the Harrell's C-index, model fit was assessed using multivariable regression techniques, and model calibration was assessed by comparing predicted to observed survival estimates. RESULTS: The validation cohort consisted of 292 SSc-PAH patients with a 1-year survival rate of 87.4%. The C-index for predictive accuracy of the REVEAL prognostic equation (0.734, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.652-0.816) and for the risk score (0.743, 95% CI 0.663-0.823) demonstrated good discrimination, comparable to that in the model development cohort. The calibration slope was 0.707 (95% CI 0.400-1.014), indicating that the overall model fit was marginal (P = 0.06). The magnitude of risk assigned to low distance on the 6-minute walk test (6MWD) and elevated serum levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was lower in the validation cohort than was originally seen in the REVEAL derivation cohort. Model calibration was poor, particularly for the highest risk groups. CONCLUSION: In predicting 1-year survival in patients newly diagnosed as having SSc-PAH, the REVEAL prognostic equation and risk score provide very good discrimination but poor calibration. REVEAL prediction scores should be interpreted with caution in newly diagnosed SSc-PAH patients, particularly those with higher predicted risk of poor 1-year survival resulting from a low 6MWD or a high BNP serum level.

Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Adopting Biosimilars and Achieving Goals of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act: A Survey of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Professionals.

BACKGROUND: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2009, which included pathways for FDA approval of biosimilar products, was designed to promote more affordable, expanded patient access to biologic therapies. Achieving these BPCIA goals depends on overcoming formidable barriers to biosimilar adoption. Managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals are uniquely qualified to inform initiatives to address these barriers. OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions regarding strategies for overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption among managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals by conducting a survey study. METHODS: Invitations to complete the online survey were emailed by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) to members and customers and to contacts sourced from a commercial database. In addition to questions on respondent demographics and perceptions of biosimilars, the survey listed 16 strategies for overcoming key barriers to biosimilar adoption. On a 5-point scale, participants rated their opinion on the likelihood that each strategy would have the potential to assist in achieving BPCIA goals. The survey also listed 6 barriers to biosimilar adoption. On a 5-point scale, participants rated their perceived difficulty in overcoming each barrier. The survey concluded with an open-text item that asked participants to list 3 additional strategies for overcoming biosimilar adoption barriers. Response frequencies were calculated to describe participants' ratings of the strategies and barriers. Statistical analyses were conducted to assess whether the ratings differed among respondents grouped by work organization. For the open-text item, we conducted qualitative content analyses to categorize strategies by stakeholder groups that might take primary implementation roles. RESULTS: A total of 300 managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals completed the survey. There was considerable variation in the preferences, policies, and practices regarding biosimilar adoption among respondents' work organizations. Responses to several survey items reflected positive attitudes about the safety and efficacy of biosimilars; for example, 84% agreed or strongly agreed that FDA-approved biosimilars are safe and effective for patients who switch from a reference biologic. Based on pooled percentages for ratings of likely and extremely likely to overcome barriers to biosimilar adoption, the highest-rated strategies were for prescriber education about evidence from switching studies (91%) and FDA guidance on pharmacy-level substitution of reference biologics with biosimilars (90%). The lowest-rated strategies were for requiring therapeutic drug monitoring for patients who switch to biosimilars (39%) and using quotas to incentivize providers to prescribe biosimilars (40%). For the qualitative analysis, the highest numbers of respondents' suggested strategies indicated primary implementation roles of biosimilar manufacturers (40%), the federal government (26%), and managed care organizations (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting the unique knowledge, perspectives, and practices of managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals, the study findings are relevant to informing and advancing initiatives for achieving BPCIA goals. DISCLOSURES: The survey study reported in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant, which was awarded by Sandoz, a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist in developing the survey and writing the manuscript. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. Greene and Pardo are employed by PRIME. Singh and Carden are employed by AMCP. Greene, Singh, Carden, and Pardo have no other disclosures. Lichtenstein received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program and has been a consultant for Pfizer, Cellceutix, and Merck.

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. TEACHING POINTS: • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. KEY POINTS: • Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. • Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). • A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation.