Journal of Breast Imaging最新文献

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of the Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) on quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) at an academic medical center.

Methods: EQUIP audit logs for technologist image quality review as well as mammography unit QA and QC formed the basis for study data. One randomly selected screening mammogram was evaluated by the lead interpreting physician (LIP) using EQUIP criteria for each technologist for each imaging site worked, initially semiannually and then monthly. One randomly selected screening mammogram interpreted by each interpreting physician (IP) for each imaging site was evaluated on a semiannual basis. Quarterly, the LIP reviewed QA and QC logs for each mammography unit with deficiencies further investigated.

Results: Of 214 965 eligible screening mammograms performed, 5955 (2.8%) underwent EQUIP image quality review. Five were found to be technically inadequate (0.08%, 5955/214 965). The LIP identified 20 significant interpretive differences compared with the clinical interpretation resulting in 10 biopsies and 7 previously undetected malignancies, with supplemental cancer detection rate of 1.2/1000 cases reviewed. Two hundred ninety mammography unit QA/QC reviews identified 31 potential deficiencies, 29 of which were due to human documentation error (93.4%).

Conclusion: EQUIP review of both IP and technologists' quality and mammography unit QA/QC logs as performed identified few deficiencies. EQUIP policies should be evaluated at each institution and modified to best utilize resources and provide opportunities for meaningful quality improvement. Although not an EQUIP focus, supplemental cancer detection was observed as might be expected with double reading.

There are important differences in the performance and outcomes of breast cancer screening in the prevalent compared to the incident screening rounds. The prevalent screen is the first screening examination using a particular imaging technique and identifies pre-existing, undiagnosed cancers in the population. The incident screen is any subsequent screening examination using that technique. It is expected to identify fewer cancers than the prevalent screen because it captures only those cancers that have become detectable since the prior screening examination. The higher cancer detection rate at prevalent relative to incident screening should be taken into account when analyzing the medical audit and effectiveness of new screening technologies.

Breast hemangiomas are rare benign vascular lesions. In a previously performed review of approximately 10,000 breast surgical pathology results, roughly 0.15% (15/~10 000) were hemangiomas. Hemangiomas are more frequent in women and have a documented age distribution of 1.5 to 82 years. They are most often subcutaneous or subdermal and anterior to the anterior mammary fascia but may rarely be seen in the pectoralis muscles or chest wall. On imaging, breast hemangiomas typically present as oval or round masses, often measuring less than 2.5 cm, with circumscribed or mostly circumscribed, focally microlobulated margins, equal or high density on mammography, and variable echogenicity on US. Calcifications, including phleboliths, can be seen. Color Doppler US often shows hypovascularity or avascularity. MRI appearance can vary, although hemangiomas are generally T2 hyperintense and T1 hypointense with variable enhancement. Pathologic findings vary by subtype, which include perilobular, capillary, cavernous, and venous hemangiomas. If core biopsy pathology results are benign, without atypia, and concordant with imaging and clinical findings, surgical excision is not routinely indicated. Because of histopathologic overlap with well-differentiated or low-grade angiosarcomas, surgical excision may be necessary for definitive diagnosis. Findings that are more common with angiosarcomas include size greater than 2 cm, hypervascularity on Doppler US, irregular shape, and invasive growth pattern.

Objective: Fibroadenomas (FAs) involved by atypia are rare. Consensus guidelines for management of FAs involved by atypia when diagnosed on image-guided biopsy do not exist because of limited data reporting surgical upgrade rates to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive malignancy. Therefore, these lesions commonly undergo surgical excision.

Methods: This single-institution retrospective study identified cases of FAs involved by atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), and/or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) diagnosed on image-guided biopsy between January 2014 and April 2023 to determine upgrade rates. Cases with incidental atypia adjacent to but not involving FAs were excluded.

Results: Among 1736 FAs diagnosed on image-guided biopsy, 32 cases (1.8%) were FAs involved by atypia including 43.8% (14/32) ALH, 28.1% (9/32) ADH, 18.8% (6/32) LCIS, 6.3% (2/32) LCIS + ALH, and 3.1% (1/32) unspecified atypia. The most common imaging finding was a mass. Most cases, 81.3% (26/32), underwent subsequent surgical excisional biopsy. A single case of ADH involving and adjacent to an FA was upgraded to FA involved by low-grade DCIS on excision for an overall surgical upgrade rate of 3.8%. There were no cases upgraded to invasive malignancy. For those omitting surgical excision, there was no subsequent malignancy diagnosis at the FA biopsy site over a mean follow-up of 73 months.

Conclusion: Cases of radiologic-pathologic concordant FAs involved by atypia have a low upgrade rate of 3.8% and should undergo multidisciplinary review. Larger multi-institutional analysis is needed to determine whether guidelines for excision of atypia should apply to atypia involving FAs.

Objective: To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.

Results: The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).

Conclusion: The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

More than 25 million Americans have limited English-language proficiency (LEP) according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This population experiences challenges accessing health care and is least likely to receive preventive health care, including screening mammogram. In a setting where the breast radiologist does not speak the language of their patient, using certified medical interpreter services is fundamental. Medical interpreter use is associated with improved clinical care and patient satisfaction and can potentially increase adherence to screening mammograms and follow-up in patients with LEP. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires interpreter services for patients with LEP who are receiving federal financial assistance. Failure to provide interpretative services when necessary is considered discriminatory and illegal. The use of untrained medical interpreters, including ad hoc interpreters (eg, family, friends, or untrained staff), is associated with more medical errors, violation of confidentiality, and poor health outcomes. Types of medical interpretation services available to address language barriers include in-person interpretation, telephone and video remote interpretation, and qualified bilingual staff. Proper training and certification of medical interpreters is essential to prevent misinterpretations and ensure patient safety. When using an interpreter service, speak to and maintain eye contact with the patient, address the patient directly and seat the interpreter next to or slightly behind the patient, use visual aids whenever possible, and have the patient repeat the information to verify comprehension. Breast radiologists can address disparities in breast cancer screening and treatment by promoting effective communication.