Search

Background: In the setting of widespread COVID-19 vaccination and booster administration, there is an increased incidence of axillary lymphadenopathy identified during breast imaging.Purpose: To investigate how breast imaging radiologists manage unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy (UAL) after a recent ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.Methods: A 26-question survey was distributed to 12 California breast imaging facilities in June 2022. Results: There were 10 responses to the survey (83% response rate). All respondents considered recent ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination relevant to the interpretation of UAL. Seven respondents (70%) also  considered non-COVID-19 vaccinations relevant. All respondents documented recent COVID-19 vaccinations, but 4 (40%) had no information for other vaccines. Eight respondents (80%) delayed screening after COVID-19 vaccination during initial vaccination efforts, and 3 (30%) still required or suggested delaying screening at the time of the survey. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categorization for UAL with no abnormal findings in the ipsilateral breast varied by facility and modality. BI-RADS categorization for UAL previously assigned to BI-RADS 0 or associated with suspicious ipsilateral breast findings varied, but practices tended to demonstrate a high level of suspicion unless the UAL showed improvement on follow-up imaging. For unchanged UAL on initial follow-up, 7 (70%) assign BI-RADS 3, and 3 (30%) assign BI-RADS 4.Conclusion: Despite available guidelines, there was no consensus approach to managing UAL after vaccination among academic and community-based breast imaging radiologists in California. Management was more uniform for a subset of patients perceived to be at higher risk for lymph node metastases, with most or all respondents recommending biopsy when there was  a suspicious finding in the ipsilateral breast, concurrent ipsilateral breast cancer, or concurrent malignant tumors not in the breast known to metastasize to the axilla.

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging education.MethodsA 22-item survey addressing four themes during the early pandemic (time on service, structured education, clinical training, future plans) was emailed to Society of Breast Imaging members and members-in-training in July 2020. Responses were compared using McNemar's and Mann-Whitney U tests; a general linear model was used for multivariate analysis.ResultsOf 136 responses (136/2824, 4.8%), 96 U.S. responses from radiologists with trainees, residents, and fellows were included. Clinical exposure declined during the early pandemic, with almost no medical students on service (66/67, 99%) and fewer clinical days for residents (78/89, 88%) and fellows (48/68, 71%). Conferences shifted to remote live format (57/78, 73%), with some canceled (15/78, 19%). Compared to pre-pandemic, resident diagnostic (75/78, 96% vs 26/78, 33%) (P < 0.001) and procedural (73/78, 94% vs 21/78, 27%) (P < 0.001) participation fell, as did fellow diagnostic (60/61, 98% vs 47/61, 77%) (P = 0.001) and procedural (60/61, 98% vs 43/61, 70%) (P < 0.001) participation. Most thought that the pandemic negatively influenced resident and fellow screening (64/77, 83% and 43/60, 72%, respectively), diagnostic (66/77, 86% and 37/60, 62%), and procedural (71/77, 92% and 37/61, 61%) education. However, a majority thought that decreased time on service (36/67, 54%) and patient contact (46/79, 58%) would not change residents' pursuit of a breast imaging fellowship.ConclusionThe pandemic has had a largely negative impact on breast imaging education, with reduction in exposure to all aspects of breast imaging. However, this may not affect career decisions.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with mammography plus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with mammography alone. Results show breast MRI screening is more cost-effective for BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutation carriers, with the cost-effectiveness of adding MRI to mammography varying greatly with age.