The Postoperative Breast: Imaging Findings and Diagnostic Pitfalls After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.

Breast surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for early breast cancer. Historically, mastectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were the main surgical techniques for treatment. Now, oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), introduced in the 1990s, allows for a combination of BCS and reconstructive surgery to excise the cancer while preserving or enhancing the contour of the breast, leading to improved aesthetic results. Although imaging after conventional lumpectomy demonstrates typical postsurgical changes with known evolution patterns over time, OBS procedures show postsurgical changes/fat necrosis in locations other than the lumpectomy site. The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists with various types of surgical techniques for removal of breast cancer and to distinguish benign postoperative imaging findings from suspicious findings that warrant further work-up.

Sustaining Mammography Image Quality With a Technologist Coaching Program in the Era of the Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of a long-term technologist coaching program to sustain gains in mammography quality made by a previously implemented quality improvement (QI) initiative. METHODS: Mammography quality metrics from July 2014 to June 2020 were reviewed. Numbers of screening mammograms performed/audited, monthly average mammogram overall quality pass rates, changes in facilities/staffing, and technical recall rates were evaluated. Performance metrics at baseline (July 2013), during the improvement (July 2014 to January 2015), postimprovement (February 2015 to August 2015), and sustained coaching periods (after initiation of the technologist coaching model, from September 2015 to June 2020) were compared. RESULTS: During the postimprovement and sustained coaching periods, 93% (501/541) and 90% (8902/9929) of audited mammograms, respectively, met overall passing criteria, achieving or exceeding the QI goal of 90%, and results for both periods were significantly higher than that during the improvement period (74%, 1098/1489), at P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively. The technical recall rates during the improvement and postimprovement periods were 2.6% (85/3321) and 1.7% (54/3236), respectively; the rate during the sustained coaching period was significantly lower than these, at 1.2% (489/40 440) (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0232, respectively). Sustained quality passing rates and lower technical recall rates were observed despite statistically significantly increases in screening volumes. CONCLUSION: A technologist coaching program resulted in sustained high mammographic quality for almost 5 years.

Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. METHODS: A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.

Adaptations of Breast Imaging Centers to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of California and Texas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging centers in California and Texas and compare regional differences. METHODS: An 11-item survey was emailed to American College of Radiology accredited breast imaging facilities in California and Texas in August 2020. A question subset addressed March-April government restrictions on elective services ("during the shutdown" and "after reopening"). Comparisons were made between states with chi-square and Fisher's tests, and timeframes with McNemar's and paired t-tests. RESULTS: There were 54 respondents (54/240, 23%, 26 California, 28 Texas). Imaging volumes fell during the shutdown and remained below pre-pandemic levels after reopening, with reduction in screening greatest (ultrasound 12% of baseline, mammography 13%, MRI 23%), followed by diagnostic MRI (43%), procedures (44%), and diagnostics (45%). California reported higher volumes during the shutdown (procedures, MRI) and after reopening (diagnostics, procedures, MRI) versus Texas (P = 0.001-0.02). Most screened patients (52/54, 96% symptoms and 42/54, 78% temperatures), and 100% (53/53) modified check-in and check-out. Reading rooms or physician work were altered for social distancing (31/54, 57%). Physician mask (45/48, 94%), gown (15/48, 31%), eyewear (22/48, 46%), and face shield (22/48, 46%) use during procedures increased after reopening versus pre-pandemic (P < 0.001-0.03). Physician (47/54, 87%) and staff (45/53, 85%) financial impacts were common, but none reported terminations. CONCLUSION: Breast imaging volumes during the early pandemic fell more severely in Texas than in California. Safety measures and financial impacts on physicians and staff were similar in both states.

Pure Fibrocystic Change Diagnosed at MRI-guided Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy: Imaging Features and Follow-up Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Fibrocystic change (FCC) is considered one of the most common benign findings in the breast and may be commonly seen on breast MRI. We performed this study to identify MRI characteristics of pure FCC on MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) without other associated pathologies and describe the findings on MRI follow-up and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for 598 lesions undergoing 9-gauge MRI-guided VABB at our institution from January 2015 to April 2018, identifying 49 pure FCC lesions in 43 patients. The associations between variables and lesion changes on follow-up MRI were analyzed using exact Mann-Whitney tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: MRI features of pure FCC are predominantly clumped nonmass enhancement (19/49, 39%) or irregular masses with initial fast/late washout kinetics (9/49, 18%). There was no upgrade to high-risk or cancerous lesions among the 11 patients (25.6%) who underwent surgery. There were 22 pure FCC lesions in 19 (44.2%) patients who had follow-up MRI (mean 18.0 months, range 11-41 months) showing regression (13, 59%), stability (8, 36%), or progression (1, 5%) of the lesion size, and no cancers were found on follow-up at the site of the MRI biopsy for fibrocystic changes. No patient demographics or lesion features were associated with lesion regression or stability (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that MRI features of VABB-proven FCC lesions may mimic malignancy. After VABB of pure FCC, given that adequate sampling has been performed, a 12-month follow-up MRI may be reasonable.