Optimizing the Patient Experience in Breast Imaging Facilities: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Breast imaging studies are complex examinations for patients and providers. Breast imaging providers and organizations invest significant resources in educating patients and referring providers to address variability in changing breast cancer screening recommendations, cultural biases, and socioeconomic barriers for patients. The breast imaging examination frequently involves multiple imaging modalities including interventional procedures, thus requiring multiple room types. Practices need to consider variables that affect workflow efficiency throughout the process of scheduling, examination performance, interpretation, and results delivery, as well as options in facilities design to create inviting yet functional environments for patients. Breast imaging appointments provide opportunity to capture individual breast cancer risk and to engage patients in health education and breast screening awareness. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review discusses ways in which breast imaging facilities can optimize patient experience throughout the complex process of a breast imaging examination, based on the authors' observations and opinions that include private and academic breast imaging experience.

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.

Minimally Invasive Breast Procedures: Practical Tips and Tricks.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding image-guided breast procedures, including helpful tips and tricks to guide the practicing interventional breast radiologist. CONCLUSION. The successful diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer involves coordination of the multidisciplinary breast team. Optimal procedural skills for image-guided biopsy and preoperative lesion localization are paramount to the radiologists' success.

Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate positioning of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with film-screen (FS) mammography positioning standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent screening FFDM in 2010-2012 and DBT in 2012-2013 at an academic institution. Examinations were performed by five experienced technologists who underwent updated standardized positioning training. Positioning criteria were assessed by consensus reads among three breast radiologists and compared with FS mammography data from a 1993 study by Bassett and colleagues. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients (n = 340 examinations) were analyzed, showing significant differences between FFDM and DBT examinations (p < 0.05) for medial or inferior skin folds (FFDM vs DBT: craniocaudal [CC] view, 16% [n = 56] vs 23% [n = 77]; mediolateral oblique [MLO] view, 35% [n = 118] vs 45% [n = 154]), inclusion of lateral glandular tissue on CC view (FFDM vs DBT, 73% [n = 247] vs 81% [n = 274]), and concave pectoralis muscle shape (FFDM vs DBT, 36% [n = 121] vs 28% [n = 95]). In comparison with Bassett et al. data, all positioning criteria for both FFDM and DBT examinations were significantly different (p < 0.05). The largest differences were found in visualization of the pectoralis muscle on CC views and the inframammary fold on MLO views, inclusion of posterior or lateral glandular tissue, and inclusion of skin folds, with DBT and FFDM more frequently exhibiting all criteria than originally reported Bassett et al. CONCLUSION: DBT and FFDM mammograms more frequently include posterior or lateral tissue, the inframammary fold on MLO views, the pectoralis muscle on CC views, and skin folds than FS mammograms. Inclusion of more breast tissue with newer technologies suggests traditional positioning standards, in conjunction with updated standardized positioning training, are still applicable at the expense of including more skin folds.

Molecular Breast Imaging: A Comprehensive Review.

Molecular breast imaging (MBI), also called breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), has been an integral component of our breast imaging practice for over a decade. Unlike mammography and ultrasound that are based on anatomy, MBI is a physiologic approach to breast cancer detection. MBI detects additional foci of occult breast cancer in 9.0% of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, has a high sensitivity for detecting high-risk lesions, and detects 98% of invasive breast cancer and 91.0% of ductal carcinoma in situ. Furthermore, in surveillance of high-risk women, BSGI/MBI detects occult cancer in up to 16.5 per 1000 women. This modality is increasingly being used to assess response to treatment in women undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and for adjunct screening in women with dense breasts. It has been shown to influence surgical management in nearly a quarter of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The Society of Nuclear Imaging has established clinical indications and The American College of Radiology has established appropriateness criteria as well as an accreditation program for MBI. A BIRADS-like lexicon for MBI has also been described. Initially, MBI utilized 10-20mCi of 99mTc sestamibi, however, recent studies have reported the use of 5-10mCi with equal sensitivity to the higher dose of radiotracer. There are over 300 studies in the literature about MBI/BSGI with increasing integration of MBI into clinical practice. This chapter will describe the history, current literature and indications, clinical use, approach to biopsy and integration of MBI into clinical practice.

Automated Breast Ultrasound Interpretation Times: A Reader Performance Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the average time for breast radiologists of varied experience to interpret automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reader performance study was conducted on female patients, with ACR BI-RADS 4 breast density classifications of C or D, who received both an ABUS screening examination and a digital mammogram from 2013 to 2014 at an academic institution. Three faculty breast radiologists with varied levels of ABUS experience (advanced, intermediate, novice) read all ABUS examinations, with interpretation times and final impressions (categorized as "normal" or "abnormal") recorded for each examination. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included, with all readers demonstrating an average ABUS interpretation time of less than 3 minutes. Compared to the other two readers, the intermediate reader had a significantly longer mean interpretation time at 2.6 minutes (95% confidence interval 2.4-2.8; P < .001). In addition to having the shortest mean interpretation time, the novice reader also demonstrated reduced times in subsequent interpretations, with a significant decrease in interpretation times of 3.1 seconds (95% confidence interval 0.4-5.8) for every 10 ABUS examinations interpreted (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mean ABUS interpretation time by radiologists of all experience levels was short, at less than 3 minutes per examination, which should not deter radiologists from incorporating ABUS examinations into a busy clinical environment.