With the Advent of Tomosynthesis in the Workup of Mammographic Abnormality, is Spot Compression Mammography Now Obsolete? An Initial Clinical Experience.

To determine if the routine use of spot compression mammography is now obsolete in the assessment of screen detected masses, asymmetries and architectural distortion since the availability of digital breast tomosynthesis. We introduced breast tomosynthesis in the workup of screen detected abnormalities in our screening center in January 2015. During an initial learning period with tomosynthesis standard spot compression views were also performed. Three consultant breast radiologists retrospectively reviewed all screening mammograms recalled for assessment over the first 6-month period. We assessed retrospectively whether there was any additional diagnostic information obtained from spot compression views not already apparent on tomography. All cases were also reviewed for any additional lesions detected by tomosynthesis, not detected on routine 2-view screening mammography. 548 women screened with standard 2-view digital screening mammography were recalled for assessment in the selected period and a total of 565 lesions were assessed. 341 lesions were assessed by both tomosynthesis and routine spot compression mammography. The spot compression view was considered more helpful than tomosynthesis in only one patient. This was because the breast was inadequately positioned for tomosynthesis and the area in question was not adequately imaged. Apart from this technical error there was no asymmetry, distortion or mass where spot compression provided more diagnostic information than tomosynthesis alone. We detected three additional cancers on tomosynthesis, not detected by routine screening mammography. From our initial experience with tomosynthesis we conclude that spot compression mammography is now obsolete in the assessment of screen detected masses, asymmetries and distortions where tomosynthesis is available.

Clinically guided core biopsy and cutaneous punch biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions: a necessary test or an obsolete skill?

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of breast cancers are diagnosed via image-guided procedures yet despite significant advances, imaging does not identify all breast malignancies. Clinically suspicious breast lesions with normal breast imaging remain a cause for concern. The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic value of clinical core and cutaneous punch biopsies in the diagnosis of breast malignancy in clinically suspicious lesions with normal breast imaging. METHODS: All patients with suspicious clinical breast findings and normal imaging who underwent a clinical core and/or cutaneous punch biopsy from 2012 to 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with subsequent breast malignant diagnosis were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 283 biopsies (166 clinical core, 117 cutaneous punch) performed over the 7-year period were included in the analysis. A total of 263/283 (93%) yielded a benign outcome. A total of 2/283 (0.7%) yielded B3 lesions (probably benign). These lesions were benign on final surgical excision. A total of 18/283 (6.3%) yielded a malignant histopathology. Sixteen out of 18 were cutaneous punch biopsies, and 2/18 were clinical core biopsies. A total of 14/18 patients presented with nipple changes, while 4/18 had a palpable area of concern. Histopathological analysis demonstrated Paget's disease of the nipple in 8/18, invasive carcinoma in 9/18 out of which two represented a recurrence of breast malignancy. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 1/18. CONCLUSION: Clinical core and cutaneous punch biopsies remain a valuable tool in the diagnosis of breast cancer particularly in the management of clinically suspicious radiographically occult malignancies.

Modified Brixia chest X-ray severity scoring system and correlation with intubation, non-invasive ventilation and death in a hospitalised COVID-19 cohort.

INTRODUCTION: There are few existing severity scoring systems in the literature, and no formally widely accepted chest X-ray template for reporting COVID-19 infection. We aimed to modify the chest X-ray COVID-19 severity scoring system from the Brixia scoring system with placement of more emphasis on consolidation and to assess if the scoring tool could help predict intubation. METHODS: A severity chest X-ray scoring system was modified from the Brixia scoring system. PCR positive COVID-19 positive patient's chest X-rays admitted to our hospital over 3 months were reviewed and correlated with; non-invasive ventilation, intubation and death. An analysis was performed using a receiver operating curve to predict intubation from all admission chest X-rays. RESULTS: The median score of all 325 admission chest X-rays was 3 (Interquartile range (IQR) 0-6.5). The median score of admission chest X-rays of those who did not require ICU admission and survived was 1.5 (IQR 0-5); and 9 (IQR 4.75-12) was median admission score of those requiring intubation. The median scores of the pre-intubation ICU chest X-rays was 11.5 (IQR 9-14.125), this increased from a median admission chest X-ray score for this group of 9 (P-value < 0.01). A cut-off score of 6 had a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 73% in predicting the need for intubation. CONCLUSION: Higher chest X-ray severity scores are associated with intubation, need for non-invasive ventilation and death. This tool may also be helpful in predicting intubation.