Search

Contains fulltext : 283317.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVES: To perform a survey among all European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) radiologist members to gather representative data regarding the clinical use of breast DWI. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed by two board-certified radiologists, reviewed by the EUSOBI board and committees, and finally distributed among EUSOBI active and associated (not based in Europe) radiologist members. The questionnaire included 20 questions pertaining to technical preferences (acquisition time, magnet strength, breast coils, number of b values), clinical indications, imaging evaluation, and reporting. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Chi-square test of independence, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 1411 EUSOBI radiologist members, 275/1411 (19.5%) responded. Most (222/275, 81%) reported using DWI as part of their routine protocol. Common indications for DWI include lesion characterization (using an ADC threshold of 1.2-1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) and prediction of response to chemotherapy. Members most commonly acquire two separate b values (114/217, 53%), with b value = 800 s/mm(2) being the preferred value for appraisal among those acquiring more than two b values (71/171, 42%). Most did not use synthetic b values (169/217, 78%). While most mention hindered diffusion in the MRI report (161/213, 76%), only 142/217 (57%) report ADC values. CONCLUSION: The utilization of DWI in clinical practice among EUSOBI radiologists who responded to the survey is generally in line with international recommendations, with the main application being the differentiation of benign and malignant enhancing lesions, treatment response assessment, and prediction of response to chemotherapy. Report integration of qualitative and quantitative DWI data is not uniform. KEY POINTS: * Clinical performance of breast DWI is in good agreement with the current recommendations of the EUSOBI International Breast DWI working group. * Breast DWI applications in clinical practice include the differentiation of benign and malignant enhancing, treatment response assessment, and prediction of response to chemotherapy. * Report integration of DWI results is not uniform.

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Objectives: While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered a helpful diagnostic tool in breast imaging, discussions are ongoing about appropriate protocols and indications. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) launched a survey to evaluate the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice. Methods: An online survey reviewed by the EUSOBI board and committees was distributed amongst members. The questions encompassed: training and experience; annual breast MRI and MRI-guided-intervention workload; examination protocols; indications; reporting habits and preferences. Data were summarised and subgroups compared using ?2 test. Results: Of 647 EUSOBI members, 177 (27.4%) answered the survey. The majority were radiologists (90.5%), half of them based in academic centres (51.9%). Common indications for MRI included cancer staging, treatment monitoring, high-risk screening and problem-solving, and differed significantly between countries (p=0.03). Structured reporting and BI-RADS were mostly used. Breast radiologists with =10 years of experience preferred inclusion of additional techniques, such as T2/STIR (p=0.03) and DWI (p=0.08) in the scan protocol. MRI-guided interventions were performed by a minority of participants (35.4%). Conclusions: The utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice is generally in line with international recommendations. There are substantial differences between countries. MRI-guided interventions and functional MRI parameters are not widely available. Key points: • MRI is commonly used for the detection and characterisation of breast lesions. • Clinical practice standards are generally in line with current recommendations. • Standardised criteria and diagnostic categories (mainly BI-RADS) are widely adopted. • Younger radiologists value additional techniques, such as T2/STIR and DWI. • MRI-guided breast biopsy is not widely available. © 2017, The Author(s).

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. Key Points: • Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. • Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). • A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation. © 2016, The Author(s).

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of fat-water separation and spatial resolution in MRI on the results of automated quantitative measurements of fibroglandular breast tissue (FGT). Ten healthy volunteers (age range, 28-71 years; mean, 39.9 years) were included in this Institutional Review Board-approved prospective study. All measurements were performed on a 1.5-T scanner (Siemens, AvantoFit) using an 18-channel breast coil. The protocols included isotropic (Di) [TR/TE1 /TE2 = 6.00 ms/2.45 ms/2.67 ms; flip angle, 6.0°; 256 slices; matrix, 360 × 360; 1 mm isotropic; field of view, 360°; acquisition time (TA) = 3 min 38 s] and anisotropic (Da) (TR/TE1 /TE2 = 10.00 ms/2.39 ms/4.77 ms; flip angle, 24.9°; 80 slices; matrix 360 × 360; voxel size, 0.7 × 0.7 × 2.0 mm(3) ; field of view, 360°; TA = 1 min 25 s) T1 three-dimensional (3D) fast low-angle shot (FLASH) Dixon sequences, and a T1 3D FLASH sequence with the same resolution (T1 ) without (TR/TE = 11.00 ms/4.76 ms; flip angle, 25.0°; 80 slices; matrix, 360 × 360; voxel size, 0.7 × 0.7 × 2.0 mm(3) ; field of view, 360°; TA = 50 s) and with (TR/TE = 29.00 ms/4.76 ms; flip angle, 25.0°; 80 slices; matrix, 360 × 360; voxel size, 0.7 × 0.7 × 2.0 mm(3) ; field of view, 360°; TA = 2 min 35 s) fat saturation. Repeating volunteer measurements after 20 min and repositioning were used to assess reproducibility. An automated and quantitative volumetric breast density measurement system was used for FGT calculation. FGT with Di, Da and T1 measured 4.6-63.0% (mean, 30.6%), 3.2-65.3% (mean, 32.5%) and 1.7-66.5% (mean, 33.7%), respectively. The highest correlation between different MRI sequences was found with the Di and Da sequences (R(2) = 0.976). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for FGT calculation were higher in T1 (CV = 21.5%) compared with Dixon (Di, CV = 5.1%; Da, CV = 4.2%) sequences. Dixon-type sequences worked well for FGT measurements, even at lower resolution, whereas the conventional T1 -weighted sequence was more sensitive to decreasing resolution. The Dixon fat-water separation technique showed superior repeatability of FGT measurements compared with conventional sequences. A standard dynamic protocol using Dixon fat-water separation is best suited for combined diagnostic purposes and prognostic measurements of FGT. Copyright © 2016 John WileySons, Ltd.