Search

To assess which specific morphologic features, enhancement patterns, or pharmacokinetic parameters on breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) could predict a false-negative outcome of Proton MR Spectroscopy (1H MRS) exam in patients with invasive breast cancer. Sixteen patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast were prospectively included and underwent both, contrast-enhanced breast MRI and 1H MRS examination of the breast. The MR images were reviewed and the lesions morphologic features, enhancement patterns and pharmacokinetic parameters (k21-value) were scored according to the ACR BI-RADS-MRI lexicon criteria. For the in vivo MRS studies, each spectrum was evaluated for the presence of choline based on consensus reading. Breast MRI and 1H MRS data were compared to histopathologic findings. In vivo 1H MRS detected a choline peak in 14/16 (88%) cancers. A false-negative 1H MRS study occurred in 2/16 (14%) cancer patients. K21 values differed between both groups: the 14 choline positive cancers had k21 values ranging from 0.01 to 0.20/second (mean 0.083/second), whereas the two choline-negative cancers showed k21 values of 0.03 and 0.05/second, respectively (mean 0.040/second). Also enhancement kinetics did differ between both groups; typically both cancers that were choline-negative showed a late phase plateau (100%), whereas this was only shown in 5/14 (36%) of the choline positive cases. There was no difference between both groups with regard to morphologic features on MRI. This study showed that false-negative 1H MRS examinations do occur in breast cancer patients, and that the presence of a choline peak on 1H MRS as malignancy marker is related to the k21 value of the invasive tumor being imaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment regimens for Hodgkin's disease (HD) that have included radiation to lymph node regions in the thorax have contributed to high rates of long-term disease-free survival. However, incidental radiation exposure of breast tissue in young women has significantly increased the risk of breast cancer compared to expected rates in the general population. After informing patients about risks associated with previous treatment of HD, we studied screening mammograms and call-back rates in women at increased risk for developing breast cancer at a younger age. We contacted by mail a cohort of 291 women between 25 and 55 years of age who had received thoracic irradiation before 35 years of age for HD with or without chemotherapy. Subjects were offered information about risks identified after HD therapy with questionnaires to assess response to this information. Ten patients refused participation, 93 did not respond, and 21 were excluded after they reported a prior diagnosis of invasive (1) or in situ (2) breast cancer. One hundred and sixty seven women received information about secondary breast cancer risk and were advised to initiate or maintain mammographic screening. Available mammograms were reviewed by two radiologists and classified according to the ACR BI-RADS Mammography Lexicon. Abnormal findings were correlated to pathology results from biopsies. One hundred and fifteen subjects reported that they obtained new mammograms during the period of the study. Ninety-nine were available for secondary review. Patients were studied an average of 16.9 years after HD treatment (Range: 4.5-32.5 years) at an average of 41 years of age (range 25-55 years). High density breast tissue was identified in 60% (60/99). Seventeen of the women (17.2%) were recalled for further imaging. This was more common in women with heterogeneously dense breast tissue. Seven of those recalled (41%) were advised to undergo biopsies that identified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in one and benign findings in the others. Among 16 women whose mammograms were unavailable for review, three were diagnosed with DCIS; two of these had microscopic evidence of invasive breast cancer. The four in situ or microinvasive cancers were diagnosed in the study participants at 25-40 years of age and from 5 to 23 years after HD therapy. Biopsies were performed because mammograms detected microcalcifications without palpable abnormality in three of these cases. Women who have had thoracic nodal irradiation for Hodgkin's disease have an increased risk of developing secondary breast cancer at an unusually young age. As expected in younger women, high density breast tissue was common on mammography, and the recall and biopsy rates were unusually high. However, early mammographic screening facilitated diagnosis of in situ and early invasive cancer in 3.5% of our subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate interobserver variability in the assessment of Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 mammographic lesions, and to determine if the initial evaluation of upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions was appropriate., Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of the mammography database (1/1/2004-12/31/2008) identified 1,188 screen-detected BI-RADS 3 lesions, 60 (5.1%) were upgraded to BI-RADS 4/5 during surveillance (cases). Cases were matched to 60 non-upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions (controls) by lesion type, laterality, and year. Available studies were assessed separately by two radiologists blinded to outcomes., Results: Eighty-two studies were available (43 cases, eight malignancies, and 39 controls). Reader 1 assessed 18/82 (22%) as BI-RADS 0, 13 cases, five controls; 35/82 (42.7%) as BI-RADS 2, 11 cases, 24 controls; 7/82 (8.5%) BI-RADS 3, four cases, three controls; 22/82 BI-RADS 4, 15 cases, seven controls. Reader 2 assessed 8/82 (9.8%) as BI-RADS 0, four cases, four controls; 27 (32.9%) BI-RADS 2, 11 cases, 16 controls; 33 (40.2%) BI-RADS 3, 19 cases, 14 controls; 14 (17%) BI-RADS 4, nine cases, five controls. For cancers, reader 1 assessed two BI-RADS 0, one BI-RADS 2, one BI-RADS 3, and four BI-RADS 4; reader 2 assessed two BI-RADS 2, four BI-RADS 3, and two BI-RADS 4. Reasons for BI-RADS 0 assessment included incomplete mammographic views, lack of ultrasound, and failure to include the lesion on follow-up imaging. Reasons for BI-RADS 4 assessment included suspicious morphology or instability., Conclusion: There is much interobserver variability in the assessment of BI-RADS 3 lesions. Many BI-RADS 3 lesions were judged as incompletely evaluated on blinded review., (Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical utility of breast MRI for diagnosing malignancy in women with equivocal mammographic findings but no symptoms., Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of an institutional MRI database of 7332 contrast-enhanced breast MRI examinations from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, yielded the records of 296 (4.0%) examinations of 294 women without symptoms who underwent MRI for mammographic findings uncertain at diagnostic evaluation. Imaging findings, histopathologic results, and patient demographics were obtained from the electronic medical record., Results: The mean patient age was 55 years (range, 29-83 years). Mammographic lesion type (n = 294) included 89 focal asymmetries, 76 asymmetries, 64 masses, 44 architectural distortions, 17 surgical scar versus lesion, and four miscellaneous lesions. Diagnostic ultrasound, performed on 286 of 294 (97.3%) lesions at mammographic evaluation, showed an ultrasound correlate in 37 (12.9%) lesions, equivocal correlate in 48 (16.8%), and no ultrasound correlate in 201 (70.3%). MRI examination of 294 index lesions showed a correlate in 133 (45.2%) and no correlate in 161 (54.8%). Forty of 294 (13.6%) index lesions were malignant, 37 (92.5%) with an MRI correlate and three (7.5%) without an MRI correlate. Among 250 patients who underwent biopsy or had 2 or more years of imaging stability, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of breast MRI for malignancy were 92.5%, 62.4%, 97.8%, and 31.9%. Forty-four of 294 (15.0%) patients had lesions incidentally found at MRI; 7 of 41 (17.1%) lesions that were biopsied or were stable for at least 1 year were malignant., Conclusion: Problem-solving breast MRI for inconclusive mammographic findings helps identify malignancies with high sensitivity and a high negative predictive value.

Image-guided breast biopsy with stereotactic, ultrasonographic, or magnetic resonance imaging guidance has become an integral component of every breast imaging program. It has many advantages over open surgical biopsy, including lower cost, lower patient morbidity, faster patient recovery, and minimal to no scarring, with equal accuracy to that of open surgical biopsy. Successful completion of a breast biopsy begins with thorough preprocedural planning to choose the appropriate imaging modality and most efficient biopsy approach. Patient mental and physical comorbidities, anticoagulation status, small or thin breasts, and breast implants, as well as lesion conspicuity and posterior, superficial, axillary, or subareolar location, pose technical challenges to successful image-guided breast biopsy that must be overcome. When biopsy is performed with use of a different imaging modality than that used to initially identify the target, careful preprocedural multimodality radiologic correlation, postprocedural identification of the biopsy marker location, and radiologic-pathologic correlation must be undertaken to ensure accurate biopsy of the intended target with use of the different modality. If, after employing all available strategic and procedural modifications, image-guided breast biopsy cannot be performed, then surgical excision of the intended target should be recommended at the time of biopsy cancellation to avoid a delay in diagnosis. This article reviews patient and lesion factors that pose technical challenges to successful breast biopsy and presents strategies and procedural modifications that aid in successful completion of breast biopsy in challenging situations. © RSNA, 2017.

Imaging and image-guided interventions have become increasingly important in the workup and treatment of breast lesions in the past 2 decades. Radiologists should be aware of potential pitfalls during the workup, the procedure itself, and in the postprocedure follow-up. In this pictorial review, we illustrate challenges related to technique and interpretation related to breast interventions, and suggest ways to maximize success., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To evaluate imaging and histopathologic differences between screen-detected benign and malignant upgraded lesions initially assessed as BI-RADS 3 at diagnostic evaluation. An IRB approved retrospective review of the mammography data base from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008 identified 1,188 (1.07%) of 110,776 screening examinations assessed as BI-RADS 3 following diagnostic evaluation at our academic center (staffed by breast specialists) or our outpatient center (staffed by general radiologists), 1,017 with at least 24 months follow-up or biopsy. Sixty (5.9%) BI-RADS 3 lesions were upgraded to BI-RADS 4 or 5 during imaging surveillance (study population). Prospective reports, patient demographics, and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the longitudinal medical record. Mean patient age was 54.1 years (range 35-85). Lesions consisted of 7 masses, 12 focal asymmetries and 41 calcifications. Fifteen (25%) of 60 lesions upgraded from initial BI-RADS 3 assessment were malignant (1.47% of total; 15/1,017 BI-RADS 3 studies). Malignancy rates by upgraded lesion type showed no significant difference: Thirty-three (73.3%) of 45 benign upgraded lesions were calcifications compared to 8 (53.3%) of 15 malignant upgraded lesions (p = 0.202). Twelve (26.7%) of 45 benign upgraded lesions were masses or focal asymmetries, compared to 7 (46.7%) of 15 upgraded malignant lesions (p = 0.202). Six (85.7%) of 7 malignant upgraded masses/focal asymmetries had no US correlate at initial BI-RADS 3 assessment compared to 7 (58.3%) of 12 benign upgraded masses/focal asymmetries (p = 0.33). Breast-imaging specialists interpreted 21 studies, 3 (14.3%) malignant; general radiologists interpreted 39 studies, 12 (30.8%) malignant (p = 0.218). There was no significant difference in malignancy rate among different types of upgraded mammographic lesions, nor depending on subspecialty interpretation versus nonsubspecialist interpretation. Although calcifications made up a majority of upgraded lesions, most were benign, suggesting that decreased surveillance of calcifications may be appropriate., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Patient advocacy has fostered the implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification legislation in many states. Little is known about the perspectives of women, primary care physicians (PCPs), and breast radiologists in response to this legislation. The objective of this research was to elicit qualitative information from these multiple stakeholders to understand varied perspectives on the subject of MBD notification and inform best practices around implementation. Methods: Content analysis of narrative data from focus groups with women (2 groups, total of 16 participants) and in-depth interviews with PCPs (n = 7) and breast radiologists (n = 7). Results: Three major themes emerged from the data: 1) knowledge and general attitudes about legislation, 2) concerns about consequences, and 3) actions patients and clinicians should consider based on MBD information. For each of these themes, the views of women, PCPs, and radiologists often demonstrated different perspectives. Conclusion: This work supports the need for clear and concise tools for patients and providers to understand MBD in the context of a woman's overall breast cancer risk with guidance on next steps.

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 lesions are probably benign by definition and are recommended for short-interval follow-up after a diagnostic workup has been completed. Although the original lexicon-derived BI-RADS category 3 definition applied to lesions without prior imaging studies (when stability could not be determined), in clinical practice, many lesions with prior images may be assigned to BI-RADS category 3. Although the BI-RADS fifth edition specifically delineates lesions that are appropriate for categorization as probably benign, it also specifies that the interpreting radiologist may use his or her discretion and experience to justify a "watchful waiting" approach for lesions that do not meet established criteria. Examples of such lesions include evolving masses or calcifications suggestive of prior trauma and instances when stability cannot be ascertained because of image quality. Although interval change is an important feature of malignancy, many benign lesions also change over time; thus, use of prior imaging studies and ongoing imaging surveillance to demonstrate the evolution of a probably benign lesion is justified. Some examples of common pitfalls associated with inappropriate BI-RADS category 3 assessment include failure to use proper BI-RADS descriptors, failure to perform a complete diagnostic workup, and overreliance on negative ultrasonographic findings. When appropriately used, short-interval follow-up saves many patients from undergoing biopsy of benign lesions, without decreasing the rate of cancer detection. (©)RSNA, 2016.

Purpose To (a) evaluate the frequency of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 assessment in screening and diagnostic breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, (b) review findings considered indicative of BI-RADS category 3, and (c) determine outcomes of BI-RADS category 3 lesions, including upgrades, downgrades, and malignancy rates. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA. The authors retrospectively reviewed the breast MR imaging database (2009-2011) to identify breast MR images classified as showing BI-RADS category 3 lesions. There were 9216 BI-RADS assessments in 5778 examinations (3360 women). Of the 9216 assessments, 567 (6%) in 483 women (average age, 47.2 years; median age, 47.0 years) were assigned BI-RADS category 3. In women with more than one BI-RADS category 3 lesion, the first lesion reported in the impression was used for data analysis. Outcomes data were available for 435 of the 483 women (90.1%). These women comprised the study cohort. Medical records from January 1, 2009, to May 31, 2015, were reviewed to obtain demographic characteristics and outcomes. χ(2) statistics and 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed. Results MR imaging was performed for high-risk screening in 240 of the 435 patients (55.2%) and for diagnostic purposes in 195 (44.8%). Findings included mass (n = 125, 28.7%), focus (n = 111, 25.5%), nonmass enhancement (n = 80, 18.3%), moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) (n = 91, 20.9%), posttreatment changes (n = 16, 3.8%), and other findings (n = 12, 2.8%). Outcomes were as follows: 339 of the 435 patients (78%) did not have evidence of malignancy at more than 24 months, 28 (6.4%) underwent mastectomy (all benign), and 68 (15.6%) had lesion upgrades, with 11 cancers (2.5%). All 11 cancers were diagnosed in women with a genetic mutation or a personal history of breast cancer. No cancer was detected in cases of moderate or marked BPE. Conclusion Six percent of all breast MR imaging assessments were categorized as BI-RADS category 3, with a cancer rate of 2.5% (95% CI: 1.3%, 4.5%). All cancers were in women with a genetic mutation or personal history of breast cancer. Marked BPE does not necessitate a BI-RADS 3 assessment. (©) RSNA, 2016.

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, because of its extremely high sensitivity in detecting invasive breast cancers, is sometimes used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate equivocal mammographic findings. However, breast MR imaging should never substitute for a complete diagnostic evaluation or for biopsy of suspected, localizable suspicious mammographic lesions, whenever possible. The modality's high cost, in addition to only moderate specificity, mandate that radiologists use it sparingly and with discrimination for problematic mammographic findings. It is rare that the reality or significance of a noncalcified mammographic finding remains equivocal or problematic at diagnostic mammography evaluation, which usually includes targeted ultrasonography (US). There are several reasons for this infrequent occurrence: (a) an asymmetry may persist on diagnostic views but be visible only on craniocaudal or mediolateral oblique projections, precluding three-dimensional localization for US or biopsy, or a lesion may persist on some diagnostic spot views but dissipate or efface on others; (b) uncertainty may exist as to whether apparent change is clinically important or owing to technical factors such as compression or positioning differences; or (c) a lesion may be suspected but biopsy options are limited owing to lack of a US correlate and lesion inaccessibility for stereotactic biopsy, or biopsy of a vague or questionably real lesion has been attempted unsuccessfully. This article will discuss the indications for problem-solving MR imaging for equivocal mammographic findings, present cases illustrating appropriate and inappropriate uses of problem-solving MR imaging, and present false-positive and false-negative cases affecting the specificity of breast MR imaging. (©)RSNA, 2016.

Purpose: To evaluate ultrasonographic (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings, histopathologic etiologies, and outcomes for developing asymmetry at mammography., Materials and Methods: In this institutional review board-approved, informed consent-waived, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective review of a mammography database for records from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012, 2354 consecutive diagnostic mammograms classified as showing focal asymmetry were identified. After patients with benign results, those considered stable, and those without prior mammograms were excluded, images from 521 studies were reviewed and 202 developing lesions were identified in 201 women. Patient demographics, US and MR imaging findings, and clinical and histopathologic outcomes were obtained from the electronic medical records. Equivocal US correlates of findings with developing asymmetry detected at mammography were excluded from statistical analysis. The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were performed and relative risk and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined., Results: Biopsy was performed in 73 (36%) of 201 patients with developing asymmetries, with 42 (58%) benign and 31 (42%) malignant results. Of 128 patients with nonbiopsied lesions, 110 (86%) were stable at 24 months (considered benign), 12 (9.4%) were stable at less than 24 months, and six (4.7%) were lost to follow-up. Diagnostic US was performed in 186 (93%) of 201 patients, 74 (40%) with correlates. US was performed in 30 (97%) of 31 patients with malignant developing asymmetries, 17 (57%) with correlates, and in 140 (92%) of 152 patients with benign lesions, 51 (36%) with correlates (risk ratio, 1.92; 95% CI: 1.001, 3.695; two-tailed P = .064, one-tailed P = .038). MR imaging was performed in 66 (33%) of 201 patients, 26 (39%) with correlates. MR imaging was performed in 10 (32%) of 31 patients with malignant developing asymmetries, all with correlates, and 53 (35%) of 152 patients with benign lesions, 15 (28%) with correlates (P < .0001)., Conclusion: Developing asymmetries were malignant in 15% (95% CI: 11%, 21.1%) of patients. Presence of a US or MR imaging correlate was predictive of malignancy., ((©) RSNA, 2015.)

A developing asymmetry is a focal asymmetry that is new or increased in conspicuity compared with the previous mammogram. It is challenging to evaluate, as it often looks similar to fibroglandular tissue at mammography. A developing asymmetry should be viewed with suspicion because it is an uncommon manifestation of breast cancer. Diagnostic mammography forms the foundation of diagnostic evaluation of a developing asymmetry and begins with additional spot compression, lateral, and/or rolled views to evaluate and localize it in three-dimensional space. Digital breast tomosynthesis can aid in evaluation by improving radiologists' sensitivity and specificity, as well as allowing localization of the lesion. Once the developing asymmetry has been fully characterized and localized with diagnostic mammography, targeted ultrasonography (US) should be performed to identify potentially benign causes of the developing asymmetry or identify a target for biopsy. However, lack of a US correlate should not preclude biopsy of a developing asymmetry. Diagnostic breast magnetic resonance imaging can be used in a minority of cases for problem solving or biopsy planning if no US correlate is identified and stereotactic biopsy is not feasible. The purpose of this article is to review the definition of developing asymmetry, describe the multimodality diagnostic tools available to the radiologist for evaluation of this challenging entity, and review the various causes, both benign and malignant., ((©)RSNA, 2016.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of visual mammographic breast density assessment and determine if training can improve this assessment, to compare the accuracy of qualitative density assessment before and after training with a quantitative assessment tool, and to evaluate agreement between qualitative and quantitative density assessment methods., Methods: Consecutive screening mammograms performed over a 4-month period were visually assessed by two study breast radiologists (the leads), who selected 200 cases equally distributed among the four BI-RADS density categories. These 200 cases were shown to 20 other breast radiologists (the readers) before and after viewing a training module on visual density assessment. Agreement between reader assessment and lead radiologist assessment was calculated for both reading sessions. Quantitative volumetric density of the 200 mammograms, determined using a commercially available tool, was compared with both sets of reader assessment and with lead radiologist assessment., Results: Compared with lead radiologist assessment, reader accuracy of breast density assessment increased from 65% before training to 72% after training (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .0001). Training specifically improved assignment to BI-RADS categories 1 (P < .0001) and 4 (P < .10). Compared with quantitative assessment, reader accuracy showed statistically nonsignificant improvement with training (odds ratio, 1.1; P = .26). Substantial agreement between qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment was demonstrated (κ = 0.78)., Conclusions: Training may improve the accuracy of mammographic breast density assessment. Substantial agreement between qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment exists., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ultrasonography (US) of the breast and axilla is primarily used to evaluate a symptomatic patient or to further investigate findings identified with other imaging modalities. Breast imagers are generally familiar with US evaluation of level I, II, and III axillary lymph nodes in the diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. However, the axilla contains nonlymphatic tissue as well, including muscle, fat, and vascular and neurologic structures, and anatomically the breast lies on the chest wall. Therefore, lesions of nonmammary and non-lymph node origin in the axilla or chest wall are not infrequently encountered during US evaluation of the breast or axilla. In fact, such lesions may be the reason that the patient presents to the breast imaging department for evaluation. Understanding the anatomy of the chest wall and axilla and using a systematic US approach will help radiologists expedite accurate diagnosis, suggest optimal additional imaging, and streamline appropriate clinical referral. Key imaging features of nonmammary non-lymph node masses are highlighted, and case examples are provided to illustrate these features. Appropriate patient management is critical in these cases because referral to a breast surgeon may not be the best next step. Depending on institutional referral patterns, other subspecialty surgeons will be involved. Online supplemental material is available for this article., (©RSNA, 2016.)

Rationale and Objectives: To determine the cancer detection rate and abnormal interpretation rate of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in previously treated breast cancer patients., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review of the breast MRI database from 2009 to 2011 identified a total of 3297 screening examinations. After excluding genetic mutation carriers, untested first-degree relatives of known mutation carriers, and patients with a history of chest irradiation, there were 1194 (36.2%) examinations in 691 patients previously treated for breast cancer. MRI reports were reviewed to determine MRI findings and breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) assessments. The longitudinal medical record was reviewed to determine patient demographics and outcomes of imaging surveillance and biopsy., Results: Mean patient age at initial cancer diagnosis was 46.1 years, and mean patient age during the study interval was 52 years. Cancer detection rate was 10 per 1000 (1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5%-1.8%]; 12 of 1194 examinations). Overall 10.7% (128 of 1194) of examinations received an abnormal interpretation, including 5.4% (65 of 1194) BI-RADS 4 or 5 and 5.3% (63 of 1194) BI-RADS 3 assessments with a 9.4% positive predictive value (PPV1; 12 of 128 examinations) and a 17.9% PPV3 (12 malignancies per 67 biopsies)., Conclusions: Screening breast MRI in women previously treated for breast cancer detected cancer in 1.0% of examinations, with a 10.7% abnormal interpretation rate, and a PPV for malignancy of 17.9%., (Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management., Methods: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results., Results: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9% were female; 23.5% (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5% (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7% (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8% (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7% (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5% (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery. Fig. 1 Impact of second-opinion imaging reviews on the management of breast cancer patients, Conclusions: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7% (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

Breast density assessment is an important component of the screening mammography report and conveys information to referring clinicians about mammographic sensitivity and the relative risk for developing breast cancer. These topics have gained substantial attention because of recent legislation in several states that requires patients to be informed of dense breast tissue and the potential for associated breast cancer risk and decreased mammographic sensitivity. Because of the considerable implications of diagnosing a woman with dense breast tissue, radiologists should strive to be as consistent as possible when assessing breast density. Commonly used methods of breast density assessment range from subjective visual estimation to quantitative calculations of area and volume density percentages made with complex computer algorithms. The basic principles of currently available commercial methods of calculating fibroglandular density are described and illustrated. There is no criterion standard for determining breast density, but understanding the pros and cons of the various assessment methods will allow radiologists to make informed decisions. Radiologists should understand the basic factors involved in breast density assessment, the changes related to density assessment described in the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon, and the capabilities of currently available software. Online supplemental material is available for this article., ((©)RSNA, 2015.)

Background: Little is known about older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy., Objectives: To examine the psychological impact and experience of women ≥ 65 years of age with a benign breast biopsy., Design: Prospective cohort study using quantitative and qualitative methods., Setting: Three Boston-based breast imaging centers., Participants: Ninety-four English-speaking women ≥ 65 years without dementia referred for breast biopsy as a result of an abnormal mammogram, not aware of their biopsy results at baseline, and with a subsequent negative biopsy., Measurements: We interviewed women at the time of breast biopsy (before women knew their results) and 6 months post-biopsy. At both interviews, participants completed the validated negative psychological consequences of screening mammography questionnaire (PCQ, scores range from 0 to 36 [high distress], PCQ ≥ 1 suggests a psychological consequence, PCQs <1 are reported at time of screening) and women responded to open-ended questions about their experience. At follow-up, participants described the quality of information received after their benign breast biopsy. We used a linear mixed effects model to examine if PCQs declined over time. We also reviewed participants' open-ended comments for themes., Results: Overall, 88% (83/94) of participants were non-Hispanic white and 33% (31/94) had a high-school degree or less. At biopsy, 76% (71/94) reported negative psychological consequences from their biopsy compared to 39% (37/94) at follow-up (p < 0.01). In open-ended comments, participants noted the anxiety (29%, 27/94) and discomfort (28%, 26/94) experienced at biopsy (especially from positioning on the biopsy table). Participants requested more information to prepare for a biopsy and to interpret their negative results. Forty-four percent (39/89) reported at least a little anxiety about future mammograms., Conclusions: The high psychological burden of a benign breast biopsy among older women significantly diminishes with time but does not completely resolve. To reduce this burden, older women need more information about undergoing a breast biopsy.

Purpose: Our purpose was to review needle aspiration of breast abscesses and identify factors associated with treatment by aspiration alone versus aspiration with surgical incision and drainage (I/D)., Methods: This Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective review of the breast ultrasound database from 2008 to 2010 identified 40 patients (41 abscesses) who underwent aspiration, with or without I/D. Demographics, imaging, number of aspirations, and microbiology were reviewed., Results: Twenty-two abscesses underwent aspiration only, 16 > 3 cm, 6 ≤ 3 cm (mean 4.3 cm, range 0.9-10 cm). Known risk factors included lactational (11), 3 weeks post partum (1), pregnancy (1), recent biopsy/lumpectomy (5). Nineteen abscesses underwent aspiration and I/D, 15 > 3 cm, 4 ≤ 3 cm (mean 4.1 cm, range 2.2-7.5 cm). Known risk factors included lactational (4), recurrent subareolar abscess (4), diabetes (3), hydradenitis suppuritiva (1), nipple piercing (2), smoking (1), pregnancy (1), HIV (1), and lumpectomy (1). Identified reasons for I/D included lack of improvement/recurrence (12), fistula (3), and one electively after clinical improvement of a recurrent subareolar abscess., Conclusions: Abscesses associated with pregnancy and lactation or breast biopsy are effectively managed with aspiration, even when large. Recurrence, chronicity, or fistula may require surgical intervention., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Overlap of breast tissue is a frequent consequence of the necessary positioning and compression of the three-dimensional breast to obtain two-dimensional mammograms. The mammary glands contain fewer anatomically fixed landmarks than solid organs do; thus, variability in positioning can have an even greater effect on mammography than it has on other imaging examinations. Most often, areas of overlapping fibroglandular tissue, also known as summation shadows, are seen on only one of the two standard mammographic views. While striving to detect breast cancer as early as possible, radiologists must learn to visually compensate for apparent abnormalities in the breast that are produced by such tissue overlap. Mammographic interpretation in this setting is made even more challenging by the fact that the only manifestation of breast cancer might be a subtle change on a single mammographic view. Breast cancer might be obscured on one of the two standard views because of the density of surrounding breast tissue, mammographic technique, lesion size or location within the breast, histopathologic characteristics of the tumor, or lack of effect by the tumor on the appearance of surrounding tissues. To heighten awareness of the factors that can lead to either unnecessary recalls or failure to identify breast cancer, cases are reviewed in which false-positive findings and breast cancers were visible on only one mammographic view. Strategies for interpreting screening mammograms and determining which findings merit diagnostic evaluation are outlined so as to help minimize false-positive findings and aid in cancer detection., (©RSNA, 2014.)

The purpose of this study was to better understand older women's experience with breast cancer treatment decisions. We conducted a longitudinal study of non-demented, English-speaking women ≥ 65 years recruited from three Boston-based breast imaging centers. We interviewed women at the time of breast biopsy (before they knew their results) and 6 months later. At baseline, we assessed intention to accept different breast cancer treatments, sociodemographic, and health characteristics. At follow-up, we asked women about their involvement in treatment decisions, to describe how they chose a treatment, and influencing factors. We assessed tumor characteristics through chart abstraction. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses. Seventy women (43 ≥ 75 years) completed both interviews and were diagnosed with breast cancer; 91 % were non-Hispanic white. At baseline, women 75+ were less likely than women 65-74 to report that they would accept surgery and/or take a medication for ≥ 5 years if recommended for breast disease. Women 75+ were ultimately less likely to receive hormonal therapy for estrogen receptor positive tumors than women 65-74. Women 75+ asked their surgeons fewer questions about their treatment options and were less likely to seek information from other sources. A surgeon's recommendation was the most influential factor affecting older women's treatment decisions. In open-ended comments, 17 women reported having no perceived choice about treatment and 42 stated they simply followed their physician's recommendation for at least one treatment choice. In conclusion, to improve care of older women with breast cancer, interventions are needed to increase their engagement in treatment decision-making.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the patient compliance with and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral mammography in surveillance of probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) lesions., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study identified lesions prospectively classified BI-RADS 3 in asymptomatic women from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008. Surveillance protocol for BI-RADS 3 lesions included 6-month (unilateral), 12-month (bilateral), 18-month (unilateral), and 24-month (bilateral) imaging, with subsequent annual screening. Demographics, surveillance data, BI-RADS upgrades and downgrades, and biopsy results were abstracted from the longitudinal medical record., Results: One thousand one hundred eighty-eight lesions in 1077 patients (mean age, 51.5 years; age range, 26-89 years) had BI-RADS 3 assessment, representing 1.07% of all screening examinations. The compliance rates for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were 83.3%, 75.9%, 54.8%, and 53.9%, respectively. Sixty lesions were upgraded to BI-RADS 4 or 5 during surveillance. Biopsy revealed 15 cancers (cancer yield of 1.47%) from 1017 lesions with either 24-month imaging stability or tissue diagnosis available. Five, six, one, and three cancers were detected at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Cancers were all stage 0 or 1 except for one stage 2A cancer. Seven hundred forty-four of 1188 (62.6%) BI-RADS 3 lesions were downgraded before completing 2-year surveillance., Conclusion: Most (11/15 [73%]) breast cancers initially assessed as BI-RADS 3 are diagnosed at up to 12 months' surveillance. Eighteen-month unilateral mammography performed as BI-RADS 3 surveillance contributes minimally to cancer detection and has poor patient compliance.

At magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, both normal and abnormal breast tissue enhances after contrast material administration. The morphology and temporal degree of enhancement of pathologic breast tissue relative to normal breast tissue form the basis of MR imaging's diagnostic accuracy in the detection and diagnosis of breast disease. Normal parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging is termed background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). BPE may vary in degree and distribution in different patients as well as in the same patient over time. Typically BPE is minimal or mild in overall degree, with a bilateral, symmetric, diffuse distribution and slow early and persistent delayed kinetic features. However, BPE may sometimes be moderate or marked in degree, with an asymmetric or nondiffuse distribution and rapid early and plateau or washout delayed kinetic features. These patterns cause diagnostic difficulty because these features can be seen with malignancy. This article reviews typical and atypical patterns of BPE seen at breast MR imaging. The anatomic and physiologic influences on BPE in women undergoing diagnostic and screening breast MR imaging are reviewed. The potential for false-positive and false-negative interpretations due to BPE are discussed. Radiologists can improve their interpretive accuracy by increasing their understanding of various BPE patterns, influences on BPE, and the potential effects of BPE on MR imaging interpretation., (© RSNA, 2014.)

Improper positioning of the breasts in a dedicated breast coil causes inhomogeneous fat saturation as well as other artifacts that decrease the sensitivity of breast magnetic resonance imaging. Improper positioning can create artifacts that can obscure a malignancy or cause it to be missed. Goals of proper positioning include imaging the maximum area of breast tissue, minimizing skin folds, and achieving homogeneous fat suppression and nondeformed breast parenchyma. Review of prior images gives the technologist an impression of what the positioning and imaging challenges may be in each patient before the patient enters the imaging unit. Checking the triplane localizer images and repositioning as necessary before any diagnostic or interventional imaging is key. Using a fat saturation pad, changing the arm position, or "rolling" the patient may be considered in difficult cases. Padding to support the patient in an oblique position, using angled sponges to increase breast compression thickness, and raising the grid to access posterior lesions may be helpful in targeting difficult-to-access lesions for biopsy. Using the presented positioning techniques and suggestions, in addition to strict attention to detail before imaging, will improve image quality, decrease imaging time and suboptimal images, and limit the need for repeat imaging studies., (© RSNA, 2014.)

Very fast extraction of global structural and statistical regularities allows us to access the "gist"--the basic meaning--of real-world images in as little as 20 ms. Gist processing is central to efficient assessment and orienting in complex environments. This ability is probably based on our extensive experience with the regularities of the natural world. If that is so, would experts develop an ability to extract the gist from the artificial stimuli (e.g., medical images) with which they have extensive visual experience? Anecdotally, experts report some ability to categorize images as normal or abnormal before actually finding an abnormality. We tested the reality of this perception in two expert populations: radiologists and cytologists. Observers viewed brief (250- to 2,000-ms) presentations of medical images. The presence of abnormality was randomized across trials. The task was to rate the abnormality of an image on a 0-100 analog scale and then to attempt to localize that abnormality on a subsequent screen showing only the outline of the image. Both groups of experts had above-chance performance for detecting subtle abnormalities at all stimulus durations (cytologists d' ≈ 1.2 and radiologists d' ≈ 1), whereas the nonexpert control groups did not differ from chance (d' ≈ 0.23, d' ≈ 0.25). Furthermore, the experts' ability to localize these abnormalities was at chance levels, suggesting that categorization was based on a global signal, and not on fortuitous attention to a localized target. It is possible that this global signal could be exploited to improve clinical performance.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare breast cancer with a highly virulent course and low 5-year survival rate. Trimodality treatment that includes preoperative chemotherapy, mastectomy, and radiation therapy is the therapeutic mainstay and has been shown to improve prognosis. Proper diagnosis and staging of IBC is critical to treatment planning and requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes imaging. Patients with IBC typically present with rapid onset of breast erythema, edema, and peau d'orange. Both tissue diagnosis of malignancy and clinical findings of inflammatory disease are required to confirm diagnosis of IBC. Imaging is used to identify a biopsy target; direct biopsy; stage IBC; differentiate curable from incurable (stage IV) disease; and help plan chemotherapy, surgical management, and radiation therapy. Comparison of baseline and posttreatment images helps confirm and quantitate disease response. When imaging is used early in the course of therapy to noninvasively predict treatment response, optimal tailored strategies for management of IBC can be implemented. Imaging is vital to diagnosis and treatment planning for patients with IBC, and radiologists are an integral part of the multidisciplinary patient care team.

The objective of this study is to evaluate a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that determines American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories from radiology reports. This HIPAA-compliant study was granted institutional review board approval with waiver of informed consent. This cross-sectional study involved 1,165 breast imaging reports in the electronic medical record (EMR) from a tertiary care academic breast imaging center from 2009. Reports included screening mammography, diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, combined diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. Over 220 reports were included from each study type. The recall (sensitivity) and precision (positive predictive value) of a NLP algorithm to collect BI-RADS final assessment categories stated in the report final text was evaluated against a manual human review standard reference. For all breast imaging reports, the NLP algorithm demonstrated a recall of 100.0 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 99.7, 100.0 %) and a precision of 96.6 % (95 % CI, 95.4, 97.5 %) for correct identification of BI-RADS final assessment categories. The NLP algorithm demonstrated high recall and precision for extraction of BI-RADS final assessment categories from the free text of breast imaging reports. NLP may provide an accurate, scalable data extraction mechanism from reports within EMRs to create databases to track breast imaging performance measures and facilitate optimal breast cancer population management strategies.

Current U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening of women with at least a 20%-25% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer include contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breasts. The cancer detection rate in high-risk women undergoing screening MR imaging is approximately 10 times higher than that in normal-risk women undergoing screening mammography. Many of these high-risk women commence MR imaging screening while they are premenopausal, when the breasts are most influenced by cyclical hormonal changes. Healthy premenopausal breast tissue enhances in a cyclical and variable manner. This enhancement is described as background enhancement. Typically, enhancement of normal breast tissue occurs in a symmetric and diffuse pattern, and there is little diagnostic difficulty in classifying it as normal background parenchymal enhancement. However, sometimes the pattern is more focal, asymmetric, or regional. It may then be described as nonmasslike enhancement, an observation associated with both benign and malignant breast pathologic conditions. A review of the morphologic features and internal enhancement patterns in normal but nondiffuse background enhancement and abnormal nonmasslike enhancement in high-risk premenopausal women can help improve interpretive specificity and decrease false-positive interpretations. MR imaging pitfalls and interpretation strategies for localized background enhancement and pathologic nonmasslike enhancement in this high-risk population are highlighted. In evaluating nonmasslike enhancement, the use of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon to perform careful analysis of morphologic features, along with an understanding of the role and limitations of kinetic information, will help balance early breast cancer detection against false-positive interpretation., (© RSNA, 2013.)

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in female cancer survivors treated with chest irradiation at a young age, beginning 8 to 10 years after treatment. Prospective data evaluating its efficacy in female cancer survivors are lacking. This study sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of breast MRI with those of mammography in women who received chest irradiation for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)., Patients and Methods: We enrolled 148 women treated with chest irradiation for HL at age ≤ 35 years who were > 8 years beyond treatment. Yearly breast MRI and mammogram were performed over a 3-year period. Sensitivity and specificity of the two screening modalities were compared., Results: With the screening, 63 biopsies were performed in 45 women; 18 (29%) showed a malignancy. All but one of the screen-detected malignancies were preinvasive or subcentimeter node-negative breast cancers. After excluding first-screen MRI and mammogram, mammogram sensitivity was 68% as compared with 67% for MRI (P = 1.0). Sensitivity increased to 94% using both screening modalities. The specificities of mammogram alone, MRI alone, and both were 93%, 94%, and 90%, respectively., Conclusion: In contrast to women with genetic or familial risk, in HL survivors breast MRI was not more sensitive than mammogram for breast cancer detection. However, the two screening modalities complement each other in the detection of early cases of disease. Early diagnosis is particularly important in these patients, given the breast cancer treatment challenges in patients who have received prior cancer therapy.

Mammography is an important tool in the early detection of breast cancer. However, the perceptual task is difficult and a significant proportion of cancers are missed. Visual search experiments show that miss (false negative) errors are elevated when targets are rare (low prevalence) but it is unknown if low prevalence is a significant factor under real world, clinical conditions. Here we show that expert mammographers in a real, low-prevalence, clinical setting, miss a much higher percentage of cancers than are missed when the mammographers search for the same cancers under high prevalence conditions. We inserted 50 positive and 50 negative cases into the normal workflow of the breast cancer screening service of an urban hospital over the course of nine months. This rate was slow enough not to markedly raise disease prevalence in the radiologists' daily practice. Six radiologists subsequently reviewed all 100 cases in a session where the prevalence of disease was 50%. In the clinical setting, participants missed 30% of the cancers. In the high prevalence setting, participants missed just 12% of the same cancers. Under most circumstances, this low prevalence effect is probably adaptive. It is usually wise to be conservative about reporting events with very low base rates (Was that a flying saucer? Probably not.). However, while this response to low prevalence appears to be strongly engrained in human visual search mechanisms, it may not be as adaptive in socially important, low prevalence tasks like medical screening. While the results of any one study must be interpreted cautiously, these data are consistent with the conclusion that this behavioral response to low prevalence could be a substantial contributor to miss errors in breast cancer screening.

Objectives: To determine whether solid palpable breast masses with benign sonographic features have less than 2% incidence of malignancy, allowing management by surveillance instead of biopsy., Methods: With Institutional Review Board approval, sonography reports of palpable solid breast masses from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2009, prospectively classified as probably benign (American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] 3) or low suspicion (BI-RADS 4A) were reviewed. Category 4A lesions were included because many palpable benign-appearing masses at our institution are classified as 4A for palpability. The BI-RADS categories were correlated with outcome data, comprising tissue diagnosis, imaging stability for at least 24 months, or decrease/resolution during imaging surveillance., Results: The study population included 440 lesions in 381 patients (mean age, 31.0 years; range, 15-68 years). A total of 161 lesions were prospectively classified as BI-RADS 3 and 279 as BI-RADS 4A. A total of 295 lesions (67%) had biopsy within 4.5 months of presentation, with 3 invasive malignancies; 145 of 440 lesions (33%) underwent surveillance. Forty-one lesions were considered benign for the following reasons: stability for at least 24 months (n = 28), benign tissue diagnosis during surveillance (n = 5), and decrease/resolution during follow-up (n = 8). The malignancy rate in lesions with adequate follow-up or biopsy was 3 of 336 (0.9%). All 3 malignancies occurred in women older than 40 years., Conclusions: The incidence of malignancy in palpable solid breast masses classified as BI-RADS 3 or 4A in this study was less than 2%. In young women, surveillance rather than biopsy is appropriate for BI-RADS 3 palpable lesions. Palpability does not merit a BI-RADS 4A classification in solid masses with otherwise benign-appearing morphologic features, particularly in young women.

Many perceptual and interpretive factors influence the radiologic detection and assessment of breast neoplasms. Diagnostic problems can be divided into errors of detection and errors of assessment and management. Detection issues may relate to inherent features of the tumor or surrounding tissue, technical problems, or human error. Even when lesions are successfully detected, errors in assessment or management recommendations can cause diagnostic delays. Improper breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) usage or failure to integrate mammographic, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with clinical findings, all lead to interpretive errors. This article reviews factors affecting the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer, to improve radiologic interpretation, benefit patients by earlier cancer detection, and lessen medicolegal exposure from a missed or delayed cancer diagnosis. Mammography is the primary imaging modality for population-based breast cancer screening, and it is also the usual initial examination performed for diagnostic evaluation of clinical or screen-detected breast abnormalities in women aged 40 years and older. Mammography is supplemented by breast US and/or breast MRI in some cases. This article will, therefore, focus on mammography in reviewing difficulties and errors in cancer diagnosis, with supplemental discussion of breast US and breast MRI., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has emerged as a valuable tool in evaluation of women who have undergone lumpectomy and whole-breast radiation therapy for breast cancer. Early diagnosis of local recurrence by means of close clinical and imaging follow-up is an important component of a breast-conserving strategy, as it may improve survival. In the post-breast conservation therapy (BCT) breast, resolving edema, fat necrosis, a small focal area of non-masslike enhancement (NMLE), and thin linear NMLE at the lumpectomy site can all be expected findings. In contrast, masslike enhancement or NMLE of ductal or segmental distribution can indicate recurrence. Therefore, at MR imaging of the post-BCT breast, it is important to identify lesions that are benign or appropriate for short-interval imaging surveillance to minimize unnecessary intervention, as well as to discern suspicious lesions and optimize the diagnosis of recurrence., (© RSNA, 2012.)

Superficial lesions are commonly encountered in the breast and may be located in the dermis, hypodermis (subcutaneous fat), or parenchyma. The differential diagnosis varies for each anatomic layer. Dermal lesions that are seen by breast imagers are usually benign skin cysts. Hypodermal lesions, although usually benign, may include lesions that arise from anterior terminal duct lobular units and include papilloma, adenosis, fibroadenoma, and breast cancer. To avoid misclassifying a small superficial breast cancer as a benign dermal lesion, it is necessary to understand superficial breast and skin anatomy and the mammographic, ultrasonographic (U.S.), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging signs that indicate that a lesion is dermal. Mammography is the optimal modality for localizing calcifications to the dermis or hypodermis. However, U.S. typically has higher resolution for localizing masses than mammography and MR imaging. At US, a lesion may be categorized as dermal (a) if it is contained entirely within the dermis, (b) if a tract that extends from the lesion to the skin is seen, or (c) if a claw of tissue surrounding the margin of the lesion is present. As with other breast lesions, suspicious imaging features should be sought in addition to determining the anatomic origin. If histologic analysis is necessary to characterize lesions with an unknown cause or origin, precautions must be taken to decrease patient morbidity.

Screening mammography can detect breast cancer before it becomes clinically apparent. However, the screening process identifies many false-positive findings for each cancer eventually confirmed. Additional tools are available to help differentiate spurious findings from real ones and to help determine when tissue sampling is required, when short-term follow-up will suffice, or whether the finding can be dismissed as benign. These tools include additional diagnostic mammographic views, breast ultrasound, breast MRI, and, when histologic evaluation is required, percutaneous biopsy. The imaging evaluation of a finding detected at screening mammography proceeds most efficiently, cost-effectively, and with minimization of radiation dose when approached in an evidence-based manner. The appropriateness of the above-referenced tools is presented here as they apply to a variety of findings often encountered on screening mammography; an algorithmic approach to workup of these potential scenarios is also included. The recommendations put forth represent a compilation of evidence-based data and expert opinion of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) Expert Panel on Breast Imaging., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MR spectroscopy, and nuclear medicine sestamibi imaging using technetium-99m methoxyisobutyl isonitrile or positron emission tomography (PET) techniques provide information beyond that of structural imaging by displaying tumor neoangiogenesis, tumor metabolites, increased numbers of tumor cellular mitochondria, and hypermetabolic tumor cells. Much needs to be learned at the molecular level of normal cellular pathways either suppressed or enhanced by tumor-specific molecular changes. These discoveries will allow realization of true individualized patient tumor detection, treatment, and surveillance., (Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon for ultrasonography (US) is based on the established lexicon used successfully in mammography and attempts to provide a common language to avoid ambiguity in interpreting, reporting, and teaching breast US. Proper and consistent use of the BI-RADS US lexicon has numerous advantages, including facilitating (a) communication of final assessment categories that clearly indicate management recommendations, (b) data tracking for self-audits, and (c) clinical review of outcome summaries. However, the literature to date does not include sufficient data on outcomes to validate clinical use of the BI-RADS US lexicon. In this article, a pictorial review of the BI-RADS US lexicon descriptors is provided, and specific cases from a retrospective review are used to highlight the challenges in using the BI-RADS US lexicon. With these examples, suggestions are offered for greater clarity in the use of this lexicon. The technical challenges in follow-up US imaging are described. The challenges in assigning final assessment categories are detailed, as well as the clinical factors that may influence decision making and the management of certain lesions.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to determine which patient-related, target lesion-related, or procedure-related variables impact the duration of MRI-guided core needle breast biopsy., Materials and Methods: Between July 11, 2006, and September 26, 2007, data were collected for 75 single-target MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy procedures using a grid-guidance technique and performed at a single institution. The following variables were studied: MRI suite occupation time, number of operators, patient age and breast size, target morphology and location, approach to target, equipment used, number of image acquisitions and times the patient was moved in and out of the closed magnet, and occurrence of complications. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test, analysis of variance, and Pearson's correlation, with p values < 0.05 considered significant., Results: The mean duration was 57.9 minutes (SD, 17.2 minutes; range, 30-109 minutes). None of the patient- or target-related variables significantly impacted the duration, although lesions located in the anterior third of the breast showed a trend to prolong the procedure (p = 0.059). The time to complete a procedure was reduced when the operating radiologist was assisted by a breast imaging fellow-in-training (p = 0.01). Increasing numbers of image acquisitions and times the patient was moved in and out of the magnet significantly lengthened the procedure duration (p = 0.0001 for both). No major complications occurred. Biopsies yielded 16% (12/75) malignant and 84% (63/75) benign diagnoses., Conclusion: Variables that minimized procedure duration were number of image acquisitions, number of patient insertions or removals from the magnet, and assistance of a breast imaging fellow-in-training. No patient-related or target-related variables impacted procedure time.