Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation of Automated Breast US.

Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. Patients with dense breast tissue are more likely to present with interval cancers and higher-stage disease. Successful breast cancer screening outcomes rely on detection of early-stage breast cancers; therefore, several supplemental screening modalities have been developed to improve cancer detection in dense breast tissue. US is the most widely used supplemental screening modality worldwide and has been proven to demonstrate additional mammographically occult cancers that are predominantly invasive and node negative. According to the American College of Radiology, intermediate-risk women with dense breast tissue may benefit from adjunctive screening US due to the limitations of mammography. Several studies have demonstrated handheld US (HHUS) and automated breast US (AUS) to be comparable in the screening setting. The advantages of AUS over HHUS include lack of operator dependence and a formal training requirement, image reproducibility, and ability for temporal comparison. However, AUS exhibits unique features that can result in high false-positive rates and long interpretation times for new users. Familiarity with the common appearance of benign mammographic findings and artifacts, technical challenges, and unique AUS features is essential for fast, efficient, and accurate interpretation. The goals of this article are to (a) examine the role of AUS as a supplemental screening modality and (b) review the pearls and pitfalls of AUS interpretation. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Interactive multidisciplinary pilot workshop to improve medical student perception of and interest in breast surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to breast surgical oncology (BSO) and the multidisciplinary management of patients with breast cancer is limited in medical school. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in student perceptions of BSO as a career following an interactive multidisciplinary workshop. METHODS: Pre-clinical medical students participated in a multidisciplinary, hands-on workshop, composed of breast radiology (BR), breast surgical oncology (BSO) and breast plastic reconstructive surgery (B-PRS). BR presented students screening and diagnostic breast imaging followed by hands-on ultrasound-guided biopsy on phantom simulators. BSO demonstrated lumpectomy, mastectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and axillary lymph node dissections while B-PRS demonstrated oncoplastic techniques and autologous flap reconstruction with cadavers. Pre-and post-workshop surveys assessed student opinions on surgery and BSO. Results were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Fisher's Exact. RESULTS: The workshop was attended by twenty-four students. There was a statistically significant increase in interest in BSO from 52% to 86% after the workshop (p = 0.003). The event improved understanding of the work and lifestyle in BSO for 79% (19/24). All students (100%) expressed interest to further explore BSO. The most common attractors to a career in BSO were impacts on patients' lives (N = 23), intellectual stimulation (N = 22), and earnings (N = 20). The most reported deterrents were lack of personal time (N = 18) and stress (N = 15). CONCLUSION: An interactive, anatomically based exposure to multidisciplinary breast cancer surgery improves medical student perception and interest in BSO. Medical schools should consider incorporating similar events to foster interest in BSO and other surgical subspecialties.