Journal of Breast Imaging最新文献

Unlike many other subspecialties in radiology, breast radiologists practice in a patient-facing and interdisciplinary environment where team building, communication, and leadership skills are critical. Although breast radiologists can improve these skills over time, strong mentorship can accelerate this process, leading to a more successful and satisfying career. In addition to providing advice, insight, feedback, and encouragement to mentees, mentors help advance the field of breast radiology by contributing to the development of the next generation of leaders. During the mentorship process, mentors continue to hone their listening, problem-solving, and networking skills, which in turn creates a more supportive and nurturing work environment for the entire breast care team. This article reviews important mentorship skills that are essential for all breast radiologists. Although some of the principles apply to all mentoring relationships, ensuring that every breast radiologist has the skills to be both an effective mentor and mentee is key to the future of the profession.

Although breast cancer death rates have persistently declined over the last 3 decades, older women have not experienced the same degree in mortality reduction as younger women despite having more favorable breast cancer phenotypes. This occurrence can be partially attributed to less robust mammographic screening in older women, the propensity to undertreat with advancing age, and the presence of underlying comorbidities. With recent revisions to breast cancer screening guidelines, there has been a constructive shift toward more agreement in the need for routine mammographic screening to commence at age 40. Unfortunately, this shift in agreement has not occurred for cutoff guidelines, wherein the recommendations are blurred and open to interpretation. With increasing life expectancy and an aging population who is healthier now than any other time in history, it is important to revisit mammographic screening with advanced age and understand why older women who should undergo screening are not being screened as well as offer suggestions on how to improve screening mammogram attendance in this population.

Objective: Preoperative detection of axillary lymph node metastases (ALNMs) from breast cancer is suboptimal; however, recent work suggests radiomics may improve detection of ALNMs. This study aims to develop a 3D CT radiomics model to improve detection of ALNMs compared to conventional imaging features in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients referred to a specialty breast cancer center between 2015 and 2020 with US-guided biopsy-proven ALNMs and pretreatment chest CT. One hundred and twelve patients (224 lymph nodes) met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were assigned to discovery (n = 150 nodes) and testing (n = 74 nodes) cohorts. US-biopsy images were referenced in identifying ALNMs on CT, with contralateral nodes taken as negative controls. Positive and negative nodes were assessed for conventional features of lymphadenopathy as well as for 107 radiomic features extracted following 3D segmentation. Diagnostic performance of individual and combined radiomic features was evaluated.

Results: The strongest conventional imaging feature of ALNMs was short axis diameter ≥ 10 mm with a sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 95%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). Several radiomic features outperformed conventional features, most notably energy, a measure of voxel density magnitude. This feature demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 91%, 79%, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) for the discovery cohort. On the testing cohort, energy scored 92%, 81%, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) for sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, respectively. Combining radiomic features did not improve AUC compared to energy alone (P = .08).

Conclusion: 3D radiomic analysis represents a promising approach for noninvasive and accurate detection of ALNMs.

With the growing utilization and expanding role of breast MRI, breast imaging radiologists may encounter an increasing number of incidental findings beyond the breast and axilla. Breast MRI encompasses a large area of anatomic coverage extending from the lower neck to the upper abdomen. While most incidental findings on breast MRI are benign, identifying metastatic disease can have a substantial impact on staging, prognosis, and treatment. Breast imaging radiologists should be familiar with common sites, MRI features, and breast cancer subtypes associated with metastatic disease to assist in differentiating malignant from benign findings. Furthermore, detection of malignancies of nonbreast origin as well as nonmalignant, but clinically relevant, incidental findings can significantly impact clinical management and patient outcomes. Breast imaging radiologists should consistently follow a comprehensive search pattern and employ techniques to improve the detection of these important incidental findings.

Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Background: High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts at average or increased risk.

Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched 1995-2022. Articles were included if women received breast MRI following 2D or tomosynthesis mammography. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Analysis used independent studies from the articles. Fixed-effect meta-analytic summaries were estimated for predefined groups (PROSPERO: 230277).

Results: Eighteen primary research articles (24 studies) were identified in women aged 19-87 years. Breast density was heterogeneously or extremely dense (BI-RADS C/D) in 15/18 articles and extremely dense (BI-RADS D) in 3/18 articles. Twelve of 18 articles reported on increased-risk populations. Following 21 440 negative mammographic examinations, 288/320 cancers were detected by MRI. Substantial variation was observed between studies in MRI cancer detection rate, partly associated with prevalent vs incident MRI exams (prevalent: 16.6/1000 exams, 12 studies; incident: 6.8/1000 exams, 7 studies). MRI had high sensitivity for mammographically occult cancer (20 studies with at least 1-year follow-up). In 5/18 articles with sufficient data to estimate relative MRI detection rate, approximately 2 in 3 cancers were detected by MRI (66.3%, 95% CI, 56.3%-75.5%) but not mammography. Positive predictive value was higher for more recent studies. Risk of bias was low in most studies.

Conclusion: Supplemental breast MRI following negative mammography in women with dense breasts has breast cancer detection rates of ~16.6/1000 at prevalent and ~6.8/1000 at incident MRI exams, considering both high and average risk settings.

Artifacts and foreign bodies can mimic microcalcifications. We report a series of 17 postsurgical women in whom mammograms showed fine linear radiodensities at the surgical bed. Vacuum-assisted biopsy histopathology of one of the lesions showed foreign bodies of different sizes with macrophage reaction. After discussion with the surgeons, we ascertained that a particular type of gauze was used that had fragmented, and we reproduced the mammographic appearance in a chicken breast. Furthermore, we showed the same pathology was reproduced in mice implanted with the gauze threads. It is important to be aware of this entity to avoid unnecessary examinations and even biopsy. The presence of foreign body linear gauze fragments at the surgical site can pose challenges in the mammographic follow-up of these patients.

Objective: Evaluate surgical utilization of SCOUT reflectors placed at breast biopsy.

Methods: Consent was waived for this retrospective IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. Breast biopsy examinations that reported the term "SCOUT" between January 2021 and June 2022 were identified using an institutional search engine. Cases were included if a SCOUT reflector was placed at time of breast biopsy and excluded if lesion pathology was already known. Analysis was performed at the lesion level. A multivariate-regression analysis evaluated 6 variables with potential impact on SCOUT utilization.

Results: One hundred twenty-one lesions in 112 patients met inclusion criteria. Biopsy yielded 93% (113/121) malignant, 3% (4/121) elevated risk, 2% (2/121) benign-discordant, and 2% (2/121) benign-concordant results. Two cases lost to follow-up were excluded. SCOUT reflectors were utilized for lumpectomy (58%, 69/119 lesions) and excisional biopsy (6%, 7/119 lesions). SCOUTs were not utilized due to mastectomy (23%, 27/119), subsequent wire localization (2%, 2/119), and nonsurgical cases (12%, 14/119). Reflector placement utilization was 52% higher for findings less than 3.5 cm in size (P <.001), 33% higher in patients without prior treated breast cancer (P = .012), and 19% higher in patients with no suspicious ipsilateral lymph node (P = .048).

Conclusion: SCOUT reflector placement at time of biopsy was utilized for surgery 64% (76/119) of the time, although most (98%, 119/121) biopsies were malignant, elevated risk, or benign-discordant. Factors increasing reflector utilization include smaller lesion size, no suspicious ipsilateral lymph node, and no prior treated breast cancer.