Journal of Breast Imaging最新文献

Objective: To determine breast radiologists' confidence in detecting invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) on mammography and the perceived need for additional imaging in screening and preoperative settings.

Methods: A 16-item anonymized survey was developed, and IRB exemption obtained, by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and the Lobular Breast Cancer Alliance. The survey was emailed to 2946 radiologist SBI members on February 15, 2023. The survey recorded demographics, perceived modality-specific sensitivity for ILC to the nearest decile, and opinions on diagnosing ILC in screening and staging imaging. Five-point Likert scales were used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Results: Response rate was 12.4% (366/2946). Perceived median (interquartile range) modality-specific sensitivities for ILC were MRI 90% (80-90), contrast-enhanced mammography 80% (70-90), molecular breast imaging 80% (60-90), digital breast tomosynthesis 70% (60-80), US 60% (50-80), and 2D mammography 50% (30-60). Only 25% (85/340) respondents were confident in detecting ILC on screening mammography in dense breasts, while 67% (229/343) were confident if breasts were nondense. Most agreed that supplemental screening is needed to detect ILC in women with dense breasts (272/344, 79%) or a personal history of ILC (248/341, 73%), with 34% (118/334) indicating that supplemental screening would also benefit women with nondense breasts. Most agreed that additional imaging is needed to evaluate extent of disease in women with newly diagnosed ILC, regardless of breast density (dense 320/329, 97%; nondense 263/329, 80%).

Conclusion: Most breast radiologists felt that additional imaging beyond mammography is needed to more confidently screen for and stage ILC.

Breast surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for early breast cancer. Historically, mastectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were the main surgical techniques for treatment. Now, oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), introduced in the 1990s, allows for a combination of BCS and reconstructive surgery to excise the cancer while preserving or enhancing the contour of the breast, leading to improved aesthetic results. Although imaging after conventional lumpectomy demonstrates typical postsurgical changes with known evolution patterns over time, OBS procedures show postsurgical changes/fat necrosis in locations other than the lumpectomy site. The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists with various types of surgical techniques for removal of breast cancer and to distinguish benign postoperative imaging findings from suspicious findings that warrant further work-up.

Objective: Complex cystic and solid breast mass (CCSBM) is a radiological diagnosis based on grayscale B-mode sonographic features. Because of potential for malignancy, biopsy is typically recommended. We examined the feasibility of contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) as a tool to identify benign CCSBMs.

Methods: This Institutional Review Board-approved prospective observational study performed targeted CEUS of 14 CCSBMs that were subsequently biopsied. CEUS images were independently reviewed by two readers blinded to other sonographic features, noting presence or absence of enhancement and time to perceived optimal enhancement. Interobserver agreement for presence or absence of enhancement was analyzed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. From retrospective review of initial diagnostic US examinations, descriptive CCSBM sizes, subtypes, and Doppler information were recorded. Histopathologies were categorized as benign, benign with upgrade potential (BWUP), and malignant. Measures of diagnostic accuracy and 95% CIs were calculated for CEUS enhancement.

Results: Of 14 CCSBMs, 12 were nonmalignant (9 benign, 3 BWUP) and 2 were malignant. There was perfect interobserver agreement (Cohen's kappa 1.00) between the 2 readers for CEUS enhancement. CEUS was 100% sensitive, 25% specific, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.625 (95% CI, 0.50-0.75) in differentiating nonmalignant from malignant lesions. It was 100% sensitive, 33.3% specific, with an AUROC of 0.667 (95% CI, 0.50-0.85) in differentiating benign from surgically significant (BWUP and malignant) CCSBMs.

Conclusion: This small feasibility study highlighted the potential of CEUS as a safe noninvasive tool to identify the proportion of CCSBMs that are benign and can avoid tissue biopsy.

Objective: Screening based on individual risk factors results in detection of earlier, more curable breast cancer. There is expectation that improved public education about the importance of personalized screening will result in earlier diagnoses and reduced breast cancer mortality. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of community education on patient perceptions about risk-based screening.

Methods: This study is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant and institutional review board exempt. A standardized curriculum was used by radiologists and experts to conduct nine 1-hour patient education sessions between October 2018 and January 2019 about breast cancer risk factors and screening options. Patient participants completed voluntary, anonymous pre-event and post event surveys to determine if the presented educational program led to attitude changes. Survey results were summarized using statistical analysis including mean, median, range, and percentage of participants responding and comparison of pre- and post event fear and anxiety.

Results: Of 336 education session participants, 59.5% (200/336) completed the pre-event and 44.3% (149/336) completed the post event surveys, Respondents reported decreased anxiety and fear regarding breast cancer screening following educational sessions, with 36.1% (64/178) reporting anxiety pre-event compared to 23.3% (31/133) post event, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .96). Additionally, 64.7% (55/85) of participants stated they were more likely to schedule breast cancer screening based on individual risk factors, and 98.0% (145/148) of participants reported increased knowledge on post event surveys.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the importance and effectiveness of community-based educational programs in increasing knowledge of risk-based screening and potentially reducing anxiety related to screening.

Objective: To determine whether continuity of care between diagnostic breast imaging and subsequent image-guided breast biopsy could reduce patient-reported biopsy-related morbidity.

Methods: This was a prospective, pragmatically randomized, 2-arm health utilities analysis of 200 women undergoing diagnostic breast imaging followed by US- or stereotactic-guided breast biopsy at a single quaternary care center from September 3, 2019, to April 10, 2023. Breast biopsy-naive women with a BI-RADS 4 or 5 finding at diagnostic imaging were randomly scheduled for the typically first available biopsy appointment. One day after biopsy, enrolled patients were administered the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI). The primary outcome was the difference in TMI summary utility scores in patients who did vs did not have the same radiologist perform diagnostic imaging and biopsy.

Results: Response rates were 63% (100/159) for the different radiologist cohort and 71% (100/140) for the same radiologist cohort; all respondents answered all questions in both arms. Mean time to biopsy was 7 ± 6 days and 10 ± 9 days, and the number of participating radiologists was 11 and 18, respectively. There was no difference in individual measured domains (pain, fear, or anxiety before procedure; pain, embarrassment, fear, or anxiety during procedure; mental or physical impact after procedure; all P >.00625) or in overall patient morbidity (0.83 [95% CI, 0.81-0.85] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.80-0.84], P = .66).

Conclusion: Continuity of care between diagnostic breast imaging and image-guided breast biopsy did not affect morbidity associated with breast biopsy, suggesting that patients should be scheduled for the soonest available biopsy appointment rather than waiting for the same radiologist.

Physician burnout continues to increase in prevalence and disproportionately affects women physicians. Breast imaging is a woman-dominated subspeciality, and therefore, worsening burnout among women physicians may have significant repercussions on the future of the breast imaging profession. Systemic and organizational factors have been shown to be the greatest contributors to burnout beyond individual factors. Based on the Mayo Model, we review the evidence regarding the 7 major organizational contributors to physician burnout and their potential disproportionate impacts on women breast radiologists. The major organizational factors discussed are work-life integration, control and flexibility, workload and job demands, efficiency and resources, finding meaning in work, social support and community at work, and organizational culture and values. We also propose potential strategies for institutions and practices to mitigate burnout in women breast imaging radiologists. Many of these strategies could also benefit men breast imaging radiologists, who are at risk for burnout as well.

Objective: The availability of same-day services in breast imaging is an important topic given potential advantages for timely diagnoses and patient experiences, but there are potential barriers that lead facilities to not offer these services. We sought to understand current practice patterns and radiologist perspectives on offering same-day services.

Methods: The Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care & Delivery Committee developed a 19-question survey that was emailed to all 3449 active members of the SBI in May 2023. An exemption from the institutional review board was obtained at the lead author's institution. The survey consisted of 19 questions that were designed to understand the scope, perceptions, barriers, and logistics of same-day services. Comparisons were made between responses for offering same-day services (screening interpretation, diagnostic examinations, biopsies) and respondent demographics.

Results: A total of 437 American and Canadian members participated, yielding a response rate of 12.7%. Respondents were most commonly in private practice (43.0%, 188/437), working in an outpatient medical center-based clinic (41.9%, 183/437), and without trainees (64.5%, 282/437). Respondents estimated 12.1% of screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited, which was significantly more common in free-standing breast imaging clinics (P = .028) and practices without trainees (P = .036). Respondents estimated 15.0% of diagnostic examinations were performed same day, which was more common in academic and private practices (P = .03) and practices without trainees (P = .01). Respondents estimated 11.5% of biopsies were performed the same day as the recommendation, which had no association with practice type/context, presence of trainees, number of mammography units, number of radiologists, or number of technologists. Long patient travel distance and limited patient mobility were the most cited reasons for offering patients same-day services.

Conclusion: Offering same-day breast imaging services varies among institutions and may be influenced by factors such as practice context and type and the presence of trainees.