MRI of the Lactating Breast.

The breasts undergo marked physiologic changes during lactation that can make conventional imaging evaluation with mammography and US challenging. MRI can be a valuable diagnostic aid to differentiate physiologic and benign processes from malignancy in patients who are lactating. In addition, MRI may allow more accurate delineation of disease involvement than does conventional imaging and assists in locoregional staging, screening of the contralateral breast, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and surgical planning. Although the American College of Radiology recommends against patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI during pregnancy because of fetal safety concerns, contrast-enhanced MRI is safe during lactation. As more women delay childbearing, the incidence of pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) and breast cancer in lactating women beyond the 1st year after pregnancy is increasing. Thus, MRI is increasingly being performed in lactating women for diagnostic evaluation and screening of patients at high risk. PABC is associated with a worse prognosis than that of non-PABCs, with delays in diagnosis contributing to an increased likelihood of advanced-stage disease at diagnosis. Familiarity with the MRI features of the lactating breast and the appearance of various pathologic conditions is essential to avoid diagnostic pitfalls and prevent delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. The authors review clinical indications for breast MRI during lactation, describe characteristic features of the lactating breast at MRI, and compare MRI features of a spectrum of benign and malignant breast abnormalities. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Chikarmane in this issue.

Deep Learning to Simulate Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI of Invasive Breast Cancer.

Background There is increasing interest in noncontrast breast MRI alternatives for tumor visualization to increase the accessibility of breast MRI. Purpose To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of generating simulated contrast-enhanced T1-weighted breast MRI scans from precontrast MRI sequences in biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer with use of deep learning. Materials and Methods Women with invasive breast cancer and a contrast-enhanced breast MRI examination that was performed for initial evaluation of the extent of disease between January 2015 and December 2019 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. A three-dimensional, fully convolutional deep neural network simulated contrast-enhanced T1-weighted breast MRI scans from five precontrast sequences (T1-weighted non-fat-suppressed [FS], T1-weighted FS, T2-weighted FS, apparent diffusion coefficient, and diffusion-weighted imaging). For qualitative assessment, four breast radiologists (with 3-15 years of experience) blinded to whether the method of contrast was real or simulated assessed image quality (excellent, acceptable, good, poor, or unacceptable), presence of tumor enhancement, and maximum index mass size by using 22 pairs of real and simulated contrast-enhanced MRI scans. Quantitative comparison was performed using whole-breast similarity and error metrics and Dice coefficient analysis of enhancing tumor overlap. Results Ninety-six MRI examinations in 96 women (mean age, 52 years ± 12 [SD]) were evaluated. The readers assessed all simulated MRI scans as having the appearance of a real MRI scan with tumor enhancement. Index mass sizes on real and simulated MRI scans demonstrated good to excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.73-0.86; P < .001) without significant differences (mean differences, -0.8 to 0.8 mm; P = .36-.80). Almost all simulated MRI scans (84 of 88 [95%]) were considered of diagnostic quality (ratings of excellent, acceptable, or good). Quantitative analysis demonstrated strong similarity (structural similarity index, 0.88 ± 0.05), low voxel-wise error (symmetric mean absolute percent error, 3.26%), and Dice coefficient of enhancing tumor overlap of 0.75 ± 0.25. Conclusion It is feasible to generate simulated contrast-enhanced breast MRI scans with use of deep learning. Simulated and real contrast-enhanced MRI scans demonstrated comparable tumor sizes, areas of tumor enhancement, and image quality without significant qualitative or quantitative differences. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on January 17, 2023.

Utility and Outcomes of Preoperative Screening Breast MRI for Planned Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in High-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND. There is a paucity of data and consensus guidelines on the utility of preoperative MRI for planned bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of breast MRI performed in high-risk patients for the indication of planned bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, with attention given to the diagnostic performance for breast cancer detection. A secondary aim was to assess the potential impact of breast MRI findings on the decision to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of prophylactic mastectomy. METHODS. A retrospective database review identified MRI examinations performed at an academic medical center from August 2003 to January 2020 for the indication of planned bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Patient demographics, imaging findings, operative details, and pathology were recorded. BI-RADS category 1 and 2 assessments were considered negative examinations, and BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 assessments were considered positive examinations. Descriptive statistics and performance metrics were calculated. RESULTS. The final cohort included 53 patients (mean age, 45 years). Most (35/53; 66.0%) studies were baseline examinations. Of the 53 patients, 31 (58.5%) had negative MRI examinations and 22 (41.5%) had positive MRI examinations. MRI detected two malignancies (one invasive lobular carcinoma and one high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ), both of which were assessed as BI-RADS category 4. The patient with invasive lobular cancer underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of mastectomy, which showed metastasis. Breast MRI had sensitivity of 100.0% and specificity of 60.8% for overall breast cancer detection and sensitivity of 100.0% and specificity of 59.6% for invasive cancer detection. CONCLUSION. Preoperative MRI for planned bilateral prophylactic mastectomy detected all cancers, indicating a potential role for MRI in impacting surgical decision making. CLINICAL IMPACT. Given the high NPV for cancer, our results suggest that lymph node biopsy may be safely avoided in patients with a negative MRI examination. This is clinically relevant because sentinel nodes cannot be identified after mastectomy.

Frequency and Outcomes of New Suspicious Lesions on Breast MRI in the Setting of Neoadjuvant Therapy.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to determine the frequency and outcomes of new suspicious findings on breast MRI after initiation of neoadjuvant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective database review identified all breast MRI examinations performed to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy between 2010 and 2018. Cases with new suspicious lesions assessed as BI-RADS 4 or 5 and found after the initiation of neoadjuvant treatment were included. Cases with no pretreatment MRI, cases in which the suspicious lesion was present on the baseline MRI but remained suspicious, and cases with insufficient follow-up were excluded. Radiologic, pathologic, and surgical reports were reviewed. Malignant outcomes were determined by pathologic examination. Benignity was established by pathologic examination, follow-up imaging, or both. A total of 419 breast MRI examinations in 297 women were performed to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy. After exclusions, 23 MRI examinations (5.5%) with new suspicious findings, all assessed as BI-RADS 4, comprised the final cohort. RESULTS. Of the 23 lesions, 13 new suspicious findings (56.5%) were contralateral to the known malignancy, nine (39.1%) were ipsilateral, and one (4.3%) involved the bilateral breasts. Lesion types included mass (16, 69.6%), nonmass enhancement (5, 21.7%) and focus (2, 8.7%). None of the new suspicious findings were malignant. CONCLUSION. New suspicious findings occurred in 5.5% of breast MRI examinations performed to monitor response to neoadjuvant therapy, and none of these new lesions were malignant. Our findings suggest that new lesions that arise in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy are highly unlikely to represent a new site of malignancy, particularly if the index malignancy shows treatment response. Larger studies are needed to confirm whether biopsy may be safely averted in this scenario.

US as the Primary Imaging Modality in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Masses in Breastfeeding Women, Including Those of Advanced Maternal Age.

Background Women are increasingly delaying childbearing, and thus lactation, into their 30s and 40s, when mammography would typically be the initial imaging modality to evaluate palpable masses in the general population. Current guidelines recommend US as the first-line imaging modality for palpable masses in pregnant and lactating women, but data regarding breastfeeding women age 30 years and older are near nonexistent. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of targeted US as the primary imaging modality for the evaluation of palpable masses in lactating women, including those of advanced maternal age. Materials and Methods Lactating women with palpable breast masses evaluated at targeted US over a 17-year period (January 2000 to July 2017) were retrospectively identified. All US evaluations were performed at diagnostic evaluation, and mammography was performed at the discretion of the interpreting radiologist. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments, imaging, and pathology results were collected. Descriptive statistics and 2 × 2 contingency tables were assessed at the patient level. Results There were 167 women (mean age, 35 years ± 5 [standard deviation]), 101 of whom (60%) were of advanced maternal age (≥35 years). All women underwent targeted US, and 98 (59%) underwent mammography in addition to US. The frequency of malignancy was five of 167 (3.0%). Targeted US demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of five of five (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48%, 100%) and 114 of 162 (70%; 95% CI: 63%, 77%), respectively. Negative predictive value, positive predictive value of an abnormal examination, and positive predictive value of biopsy were 114 of 114 (100%; 95% CI: 97%, 100%), five of 53 (9.4%; 95% CI: 3%, 21%), and five of 50 (10%; 95% CI: 3%, 22%), respectively. In the subset of 98 women who underwent mammography in addition to US, mammography depicted seven incidental suspicious findings, which lowered the specificity from 62 of 93 (67%; 95% CI: 56%, 76%) to 57 of 93 (61%; 95% CI: 51%, 71%) (P = .02). Conclusion Targeted US depicted all malignancies in lactating women with palpable masses. Adding mammography increased false-positive findings without any additional cancer diagnoses. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

The Role of Breast MRI in Detecting Asymptomatic Recurrence After Therapeutic Mastectomy.

OBJECTIVE. MRI is not routinely used to screen for cancer recurrence after therapeutic mastectomy; however, data on this topic are sparse. We performed this study to determine the utility of breast MRI in detecting asymptomatic locoregional recurrence after therapeutic mastectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective record review identified all breast MRI studies performed in women who had undergone unilateral therapeutic mastectomy over a 6-year period (January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016). A total of 402 studies were performed in 191 women between the ages of 26 and 78 years old, none of whom were experiencing symptoms on the mastectomy side. BI-RADS assessments for the mastectomy side were extracted from the radiology reports, and the electronic medical records were reviewed for surgical and oncologic history, clinical and imaging follow-up, and pathologic results. Malignancy was determined by pathologic results. Benignity was confirmed by at least one of the following: pathologic results, at least 12 months of documented disease-free clinical follow-up, or at least 12 months of documented disease-free imaging follow-up. Descriptive statistical and 2 × 2 contingency table analyses were performed. RESULTS. In all, 395 MR images (98.3%) were assessed as showing benign findings on the mastectomy side. Seven (1.7%) were interpreted as showing positive findings on the mastectomy side (BI-RADS category 4, suspicious for malignancy). Biopsy was performed in four of the seven positive interpretations. All four biopsies yielded malignancy for a positive predictive value of biopsy of 100%. The three remaining positive cases did not include biopsy; however, in each case, follow-up imaging showed improvement or resolution of the finding, yielding a positive predictive value of an abnormal examination of 57.1%. Two MRI studies were false-negative, with local recurrence within 12 months after MRI deemed to show benign findings, yielding a negative predictive value of 99.5%. Sensitivity and specificity were 66.7% and 99.2%, respectively. The cancer detection rate in the asymptomatic mastectomy side for all MRI examinations was 10 cancers per 1000 examinations. CONCLUSION. Our findings support inclusion of the mastectomy side in MRI examinations of the contralateral breast to screen for cancer recurrence after therapeutic mastectomy.

Utility of Diagnostic Mammography as the Primary Imaging Modality for Palpable Lumps in Women With Almost Entirely Fatty Breasts.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of diagnostic mammography alone for evaluation of palpable symptoms in women with almost entirely fatty breast composition. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All diagnostic mammograms performed for palpable symptoms in women who had been assigned a breast density of "almost entirely fatty" over an 8-year period (2009-2017) at an academic breast center were retrospectively identified. Each symptomatic breast was considered a separate case and analyses were performed at the case level. Clinical, imaging, and pathologic results were reviewed. Descriptive statistics and 2 × 2 contingency table analyses were performed. RESULTS. The study cohort included 323 cases evaluated with mammography. Of these, 294 (91%) had undergone targeted ultrasound. At mammography, 240 (74%) had no correlate to the palpable lump; 38 (12%), a benign correlate; and 45 (14%), a suspicious correlate. Three cases had incidental suspicious mammographic findings, for a total of 48 positive mammography cases. Twenty-seven (8%) cases were malignant. Mammography alone detected all but one cancer, which was detected by ultrasound. In retrospect, the woman from whom this single false-negative mammogram was obtained did not have almost entirely fatty breast density. Mammography alone yielded a negative predictive value of 99.6%, percentage of diagnostic examinations recommended for biopsy that resulted in a tissue diagnosis of malignancy within 1 year of 54%, sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 93%. Adjunct ultrasound contributed to 11 false-positives but also identified benign correlates in eight cases with no mammographic finding. CONCLUSION. In patients with almost entirely fatty breast tissue presenting with palpable symptoms, mammography alone had a high sensitivity and specificity. Our results support that mammography alone may be sufficient for evaluation of palpable symptoms in these women as long as density criteria are strictly applied.

Utility and Outcomes of Imaging Evaluation for Palpable Lumps in the Postmastectomy Patient.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to assess the utility of targeted breast ultrasound and mammography in evaluating palpable lumps in the mastectomy bed. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study identified postmastectomy patients who presented for initial imaging evaluation of palpable lumps between January 2009 and December 2015. Clinical, imaging, and pathology results were reviewed. Surgical reconstruction type and percutaneous sampling data were collected. Patients were excluded if they had known malignancy at imaging presentation, if the palpable lump was not at the mastectomy site, or if there was less than 1 year clinical or imaging follow-up in the absence of biopsy. Each palpable site was assigned as a case, and analyses were performed at the case level. RESULTS. Among the 101 patients with a history of prophylactic or therapeutic mastectomy who presented during the study period, 118 palpable cases met the inclusion criteria. All 118 cases were evaluated with ultrasound and 43 with mammography. Among the 75 cases evaluated with ultrasound alone, nine cancers were detected. Among the 43 cases evaluated with both ultrasound and mammography, three cancers were sonographically detected, of which two were mammographically visible and one was mammographically occult. There were two false-negative ultrasound cases; both underwent sampling because of the level of clinical suspicion. In total, 14 palpable lumps in 12 patients were malignant, and 104 palpable lumps in 89 patients were nonmalignant. Targeted ultrasound yielded a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% and a positive predictive value 2 of 27%. CONCLUSION. Our data suggest that targeted breast ultrasound, with its high NPV, should be the initial imaging test of choice for palpable lumps after mastectomy. Mammography yielded no additional cancers but was helpful in confirming benign diagnoses. The two false-negative ultrasound cases support palpation-guided sampling for imaging-occult and clinically suspicious palpable lumps.

Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography.

Purpose To compare the performance of two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in the detection of microcalcifications on screening mammograms. Materials and Methods In this retrospective multireader observer study, 72 consecutive screening mammograms recalled for microcalcifications from June 2015 through August 2016 were evaluated with both FFDM and DBT. The data set included 54 mammograms with benign microcalcifications and 18 mammograms with malignant microcalcifications, and 20 additional screening mammograms without microcalcifications used as controls. FFDM alone was compared to synthetic mammography plus DBT. Four readers independently reviewed each data set and microcalcification recalls were tabulated. Sensitivity and specificity for microcalcification detection were calculated for SM plus DBT and for FFDM alone. Interreader agreement was calculated with Fleiss kappa values. Results Reader agreement was kappa value of 0.66 (P < .001) for FFDM and 0.63 (P < .001) for SM plus DBT. For FFDM, the combined reader sensitivity for all microcalcifications was 80% (229 of 288; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 74%, 84%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 92% (66 of 72; 95% CI: 83%, 97%). For SM plus DBT, the combined reader sensitivity for all microcalcifications was 75% (215 of 288; 95% CI: 69%, 80%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 94% (68 of 72; 95% CI: 86%, 98%). For FFDM, the combined reader specificity for all microcalcifications was 98% (78 of 80; 95% CI: 91%, 100%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 98% (78 of 80; 95% CI: 91%, 100%). For SM plus DBT, combined reader specificity for all microcalcifications was 95% (76 of 80; 95% CI: 88%, 99%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 95% (76 of 80; 95% CI: 88%, 99%). Mixed-effects model concluded no differences between modalities (‒0.03; 95% CI: ‒0.08, 0.01; P = .13). Conclusion Relative to full-field digital mammography, synthetic mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity for the detection of microcalcifications previously identified for recall at screening mammography. © RSNA, 2018 See also the editorial by Bae and Moon in this issue.

Paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome as a presentation of underlying breast malignancy.

While breast cancer most commonly presents as a screen-detected mammographic finding or a breast symptom, in very rare instances it may first present as a paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome (PNS; Surg Case Rep, 2015;1:59; Ann Neurol 2004;56:715). Fewer than 1% of breast cancer patients have PNS, and an even smaller percentage initially present with neurologic symptoms (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2004;75:ii43). We report a case series of three patients who presented with neurological disorders suspicious for PNS, and were subsequently found to have underlying breast cancer. We follow this with a discussion of key clinical features of management considerations in paraneoplastic syndromes secondary to breast malignancy.

Improving Screening Mammography Outcomes Through Comparison With Multiple Prior Mammograms.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study is to evaluate the effect of comparison with multiple prior mammograms on the outcomes of screening mammography relative to comparison with a single prior mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 46,288 consecutive screening mammograms performed at our institution for 22,792 women. We divided these examinations into three groups: those interpreted without comparison with prior mammograms, those interpreted in comparison with one prior examination, and those interpreted in comparison with two or more prior examinations. For each group, we determined the rate of examination recall. We also calculated the positive predictive value of recall (i.e., positive predictive value level 1 [PPV1]) and the cancer detection rate (CDR) for both the group of examinations compared with a single prior mammogram and the group compared with multiple prior mammograms. Generalized estimating equations with the logistic link function were used to determine the relative odds ratio of recall as a function of the number of comparisons, with adjustment made for age as a confounding variable. The Fisher exact test was performed to compare the PPV1 and the CDR in the different cohorts. RESULTS: The recall rate for mammograms interpreted without comparison with prior examinations was 16.6%, whereas that for mammograms compared with one prior examination was 7.8% and that for mammograms compared with two or more prior examinations was 6.3%. After adjustment was made for age, the odds ratio of recall for the group with multiple prior examinations relative to the group with a single prior examination was 0.864 (95% CI, 0.776-0.962; p = 0.0074). Statistically significant increases in the PPV1 of 0.05 (p = 0.0009) and in the CDR of 2.3 cases per 1000 examinations (p = 0.0481) were also noted for mammograms compared with multiple prior examinations relative to those compared with a single prior examination. CONCLUSION: Comparison with two or more prior mammograms resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the screening mammography recall rate and increases in the CDR and PPV1 relative to comparison with a single prior mammogram.

Prevalent vs Incident Screen: Why Does It Matter?

There are important differences in the performance and outcomes of breast cancer screening in the prevalent compared to the incident screening rounds. The prevalent screen is the first screening examination using a particular imaging technique and identifies pre-existing, undiagnosed cancers in the population. The incident screen is any subsequent screening examination using that technique. It is expected to identify fewer cancers than the prevalent screen because it captures only those cancers that have become detectable since the prior screening examination. The higher cancer detection rate at prevalent relative to incident screening should be taken into account when analyzing the medical audit and effectiveness of new screening technologies.

The role of digital mammographic surveillance for detection of asymptomatic recurrence in autologous flap reconstructions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of digital mammography in detecting asymptomatic malignancy in autologous flap reconstructions after mastectomy. METHODS: A retrospective database review identified all mammograms performed on asymptomatic patients with flap reconstructions over a 9-year period (1/1/2009 to 12/31/2017). A negative examination was defined as BI-RADS 1 or 2 and a positive examination was defined as BI-RADS 0, 4, or 5 assigned to the mastectomy side. Malignant outcomes were determined by pathology results. Interval cancers, or false negatives, were defined as locoregional malignant diagnosis within one year of a negative mammogram. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, abnormal interpretation rate, and cancer detection rate were calculated. RESULTS: 626 mammograms of asymptomatic flap reconstructions were performed in 183 patients. The most common flap type was TRAM (83.5 %, 523/626) and DIEP (13.4 %, 84/626). Most exams (98.2 %, 615/626) were negative, assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2, with no interval cancers at follow-up. Eleven exams (1.8 %, 11/626) were positive, assessed as BI-RADS 0, 4, or 5. After diagnostic work-up of all BI-RADS 0 exams, 9 cases had a final recommendation for biopsy of which 3 were malignant. Mammography yielded a cancer detection rate of 0.5 % (3/626), abnormal interpretation rate of 1.8 % (11/626), NPV of 100 % (615/615), overall PPV of 27.3 % (3/11), PPV2 (positive predictive value of a biopsy recommendation) of 33.3 % (3/9), sensitivity of 100 % (3/3), and specificity of 98.7 % (615/623). CONCLUSION: Digital mammography of asymptomatic autologous flap reconstructions after mastectomy demonstrated high sensitivity and low abnormal interpretation rate. Cancer detection rate was comparable to current national benchmarks for mammographic screening in the general U.S. population without mastectomy.

Updates in Transgender Breast Imaging.

Transgender patients are seen in breast imaging centers for routine screening mammography and diagnostic imaging of the symptomatic breast. This comprehensive review of transgender breast imaging aims to update the radiologist on appropriate terminology, breast cancer risk in different patient populations, screening guidelines, and diagnostic scenarios. The chapter concludes with practical tips on how to optimize the patient experience.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer: 2022 Update.

Imaging plays a vital role in managing patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as treatment decisions rely heavily on accurate assessment of response to therapy. This document provides evidence-based guidelines for imaging breast cancer before, during, and after initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of the Axilla.

This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach of the axilla in various scenarios with broad differential diagnosis ranging from inflammatory to malignant etiologies. Controversies on the management of axillary adenopathy results in disagreement on the appropriate axillary imaging tests. Ultrasound is often the appropriate initial imaging test in several clinical scenarios. Clinical information (such as age, physical examinations, risk factors) and concurrent complete breast evaluation with mammogram, tomosynthesis, or MRI impact the type of initial imaging test for the axilla. Several impactful clinical trials demonstrated that selected patient's population can received sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection with similar overall survival, and axillary lymph node dissection is a safe alternative as the nodal staging procedure for clinically node negative patients or even for some node positive patients with limited nodal tumor burden. This approach is not universally accepted, which adversely affect the type of imaging tests considered appropriate for axilla. This document is focused on the initial imaging of the axilla in various scenarios, with the understanding that concurrent or subsequent additional tests may also be performed for the breast. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge: 2022 Update.

The type of nipple discharge dictates the appropriate imaging study. Physiologic nipple discharge is common and does not require diagnostic imaging. Pathologic nipple discharge in women, men, and transgender patients necessitates breast imaging. Evidence-based guidelines were used to evaluate breast imaging modalities for appropriateness based on patient age and gender. For an adult female or male 40 years of age or greater, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is performed initially. Breast ultrasound is usually performed at the same time with rare exception. For males or females 30 to 39 years of age, mammography/DBT or breast ultrasound is performed based on institutional preference and individual patient considerations. For young women less than 30 years of age, ultrasound is performed first with mammography/DBT added if there are suspicious findings or if the patient is at elevated lifetime risk for developing breast cancer. There is a high incidence of breast cancer in males with pathologic discharge. Men 25 years and older should be evaluated using mammography/DBT and ultrasound added when indicted. In transfeminine (male-to-female) patients, mammography/DBT and ultrasound are useful due to the increased incidence of breast cancer. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

The Value of Targeted Ultrasound for the Primary Evaluation of Breast Symptoms in Pregnant Women of All Ages.

OBJECTIVE: Data on breast imaging in symptomatic pregnant women are limited. Our aim was to assess the value of targeted breast US for the primary evaluation of breast symptoms in pregnant women of all ages. METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective study included all pregnant patients who underwent targeted US for focal breast symptoms at an academic imaging facility over an 18-year period (2000-2018). Clinical, imaging, and pathology results were reviewed. Malignant outcomes were determined by histology. Benign outcomes were confirmed by pathology or ≥2 years of follow-up. Descriptive statistics and 2 × 2 contingency table analyses were performed at the presentation level. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 178 presentations in 175 pregnant women. Mean age was 34.7 years (standard deviation, 5.2). The majority (153/178, 86.0%) were more than 30 years old. At presentation, 42.1% (75/178) were in the first trimester of pregnancy, 27.0% (48/178) in the second, and 29.8% (53/178) in the third. The most common presenting symptom was a palpable lump (162/178, 91.0%), followed by focal pain (7/178, 3.9%). The vast majority (174/178, 97.8%) of cases were non-malignant. However, targeted US detected all 4 malignancies (cancer detection rate, 22/1000; negative predictive value 136/136, 100%). Sensitivity and specificity were 100% (4/4) and 78.2% (136/174), respectively. CONCLUSION: Benign causes of symptoms in pregnant women were far more common; malignancy was rare, accounting for only 2.2% (4/178) of cases. Targeted breast US detected all malignancies, supporting US as the primary imaging modality for evaluating symptomatic pregnant women, regardless of age.