Search

Objective: We investigated patient experience with screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to determine whether a general population of women with dense breasts would accept CEM in a screening setting., Methods: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with heterogeneous and extremely dense breasts on their mammogram were invited to undergo screening CEM and complete pre-CEM and post-CEM surveys. On the pre-CEM survey, patients were asked about their attitudes regarding supplemental screening in general. On the post-CEM survey, patients were asked about their experience undergoing screening CEM, including causes and severity of any discomfort and whether they would consider undergoing screening CEM again in the future or recommend it to a friend., Results: One hundred sixty-three women were surveyed before and after screening CEM. Most patients, 97.5% (159/163), reported minimal or no unpleasantness associated with undergoing screening CEM. In addition, 91.4% (149/163) said they would probably or very likely undergo screening CEM in the future if it cost the same as a traditional screening mammogram, and 95.1% (155/163) said they would probably or very likely recommend screening CEM to a friend. Patients in this study, who were all willing to undergo CEM, more frequently reported a family history of breast cancer than a comparison cohort of women with dense breasts (58.2% vs 47.1%, P = .027)., Conclusion: Patients from a general population of women with dense breasts reported a positive experience undergoing screening CEM, suggesting screening CEM might be well received by this patient population, particularly if the cost was comparable with traditional screening mammography., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Percutaneous image-guided biopsy procedures are the standard of care for histologic assessment of suspicious breast lesions. Post-biopsy tissue markers (clips) optimize patient management by allowing for assessment on follow-up imaging and precise lesion localization. Markers are used to ensure accurate correlation between imaging modalities, guide preoperative localization for malignant and high-risk lesions, and facilitate accurate identification of benign lesions at follow-up. Local practices differ widely, and there are no data detailing the exact frequency of use of clips for different breast biopsies. There are many indications for biopsy marker deployment, and some difficulties may be encountered after placement. The placement of biopsy markers has many advantages and few disadvantages, such that deployment should be routinely used after percutaneous biopsy procedures with rare exception., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Autoimmune and systemic inflammatory diseases represent a heterogeneous group of immune-mediated conditions with a wide range of clinical presentations and various affected organs. Autoimmune diseases can present in the breast as localized disease or as part of systemic involvement. Although breast involvement is uncommon, the spectrum of imaging findings can include breast masses, axillary adenopathy, calcifications, and skin changes, the appearance of which can mimic breast cancer. Common etiologies include diabetic mastopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, idiopathic granulomatous mastitis, sarcoidosis, and Immunoglobulin-G4 related mastopathy. This educational review will present multimodality imaging findings of breast manifestations of systemic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases and coexisting complications. It will also review how these disorders may affect breast cancer risk and breast cancer treatment options, including radiation therapy., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Breast fibroadenomas (FAs) are common, benign, and often bothersome. Current management includes observation or surgical excision. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for the treatment of FAs., Methods: Twenty women with a palpable, biopsy-confirmed FA were enrolled in a prospective trial, and they underwent treatment utilizing an ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation device. Tumors were greater than 1 cm in diameter, with volumes of 0.3-10 cc. Safety, treatment experience, toxicity, cosmesis, and change in tumor size on palpation and ultrasound measurement were obtained before and after treatment at 3, 6, and 12 months., Results: All of the 20 patients completed therapy. Pretreatment mean tumor volume was 1.8 cc (standard deviation = 1.23, range 0.57-5.7). Half of the patients reported a painful mass before treatment. All adverse events were well tolerated and transient, with the most common being mild pain, reported by 15 of 20 patients during treatment, and 14 of 20 at the day-7 postprocedure follow-up. Mean pain score during treatment was 16, and at day 7, it was 12.2, on a scale from 0 to 100 (100 = worst pain). Mean patient satisfaction was 4.4 on a scale of 1-5 (5 = most satisfied). Mean likelihood of recommending treatment was 4.7 (5 = most likely). At the 12-month postprocedure follow-up, the mean reduction in volume of the FA was 65.5% on ultrasound; the mass was no longer palpable in 80% of the patients; no patients reported pain; and cosmesis was rated as excellent in all patients., Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation appears to be effective, safe, and well tolerated for the treatment of FAs. A larger multicenter clinical trial is currently under way., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)