Search

This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach of the axilla in various scenarios with broad differential diagnosis ranging from inflammatory to malignant etiologies. Controversies on the management of axillary adenopathy results in disagreement on the appropriate axillary imaging tests. Ultrasound is often the appropriate initial imaging test in several clinical scenarios. Clinical information (such as age, physical examinations, risk factors) and concurrent complete breast evaluation with mammogram, tomosynthesis, or MRI impact the type of initial imaging test for the axilla. Several impactful clinical trials demonstrated that selected patient's population can received sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection with similar overall survival, and axillary lymph node dissection is a safe alternative as the nodal staging procedure for clinically node negative patients or even for some node positive patients with limited nodal tumor burden. This approach is not universally accepted, which adversely affect the type of imaging tests considered appropriate for axilla. This document is focused on the initial imaging of the axilla in various scenarios, with the understanding that concurrent or subsequent additional tests may also be performed for the breast. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Purpose In this study, we compare readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) to a work-in-progress single-shot EPI with modified Inversion Recovery Background Suppression (ss-EPI-mIRBS) sequence at 3 T using a b-value of 2000 s/mm2 on image quality, lesion visibility and evaluation time. Method From September 2017 to December 2018, 23 women (one case used for training) with known breast cancer were included in this study, after providing signed informed consent. Women were scanned with the conventional rs-EPI sequence and the work-in-progress ss-EPI-mIRBS during the same examination. Four breast radiologists (4–13 years of experience) independently scored both series for overall image quality (1: extremely poor to 9: excellent). All lesions (47 in total, 36 malignant, and 11 benign and high-risk) were evaluated for visibility (1: not visible, 2: visible if location is given, 3: visible) and probability of malignancy (BI-RADS 1 to 5). ADC values were determined by measuring signal intensity in the lesions using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images for reference. Evaluation times for all assessments were automatically recorded. Results were analyzed using the visual grading characteristics (VGC) and the resulting area under the curve (AUCVGC) method. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS, with McNemar tests, and paired t-tests used for comparison. Results No significant differences were detected between the two sequences in image quality (AUCVGC: 0.398, p = 0.087) and lesion visibility (AUCVGC: 0.534, p = 0.336) scores. Lesion characteristics (e.g benign and high-risk, versus malignant; small (≤10 mm) vs. larger (>10 mm)) did not result in different image quality or lesion visibility between sequences. Sensitivity (rs-EPI: 72.2% vs. ss-EPImIRBS: 78.5%, p = 0.108) and specificity (70.5% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.210, respectively) were comparable. In both sequences the mean ADC value was higher for benign and high-risk lesions than for malignant lesions (ss-EPI-mIRBS: p = 0.022 and rs-EPI: p = 0.055). On average, ss-EPI-mIRBS resulted in decreased overall reading time by 7.7 s/case (p = 0.067); a reduction of 17%. For malignant lesions, average reading time was significantly shorter using ss-EPI-mIRBS compared to rs-EPI (64.0 s/lesion vs. 75.9 s/lesion, respectively, p = 0.039). Conclusion Based on this study, the ss-EPI sequence using a b-value of 2000 s/mm2 enables for a mIRBS acquisition with quality and lesion conspicuity that is comparable to conventional rs-EPI, but with a decreased reading time.

Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on the sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones. Insufficient evidence exists to determine whether transgender people undergoing hormone therapy have an overall lower, average, or higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to birth-sex controls. Furthermore, there are no longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer screening in the transgender population. In the absence of definitive data, current evidence is based on data extrapolated from cisgender studies and a limited number of cohort studies and case reports published on the transgender community. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Mammography remains the only validated screening tool for breast cancer, however, there are limitations to mammography. One of the limitations of mammography is the variable sensitivity based on breast density. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient’s risk level and breast density. For average-risk women with nondense breasts, the sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is high; additional supplemental screening is not warranted in this population. For average-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, screening ultrasound (US), breast MRI, or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women, there is emerging evidence suggesting that women in this population may benefit from breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhancedmammography or screening US. There is strong evidence supporting screening high-risk women with breast MRI regardless of breast density. Contrast-enhanced mammography, whole breast screening US, or abbreviated breast MRI may be also considered. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection but is currently limited to screening women at high risk due to limited specificity and test accessibility. However, specificity of MR imaging improves with successive rounds of screening, and abbreviated approaches have the potential to increase access and decrease cost. There is growing evidence to support supplemental MR imaging in moderate-risk women, and current guidelines continue to evolve. Functional imaging has the potential to maximize survival benefit of screening. Leveraging MR imaging as a possible primary screening tool is therefore also being investigated in average-risk women.

Breast MR imaging is the most sensitive imaging method for the detection of breast cancer and detects more aggressive malignancies than mammography and ultrasound examination. Despite these advantages, breast MR imaging has low use rates for breast cancer screening. Abbreviated breast MR imaging, in which a limited number of breast imaging sequences are obtained, has been proposed as a way to solve cost and patient tolerance issues while preserving the high cancer detection rate of breast MR imaging. This review discusses abbreviated breast MR imaging, including protocols, multicenter clinical trial results, clinical workflow implementation challenges, and future directions.

Rationale and Objectives Pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer after HER2-targeted therapy correlates increased disease-free survival and decreased mastectomy rates. The aim of this study was to explore tumor shrinkage patterns and initial tumor enhancement with pCR in HER2-positive breast cancer. Materials and Methods This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis of 51 HER2 positive breast cancer patients with breast MRI both pre- and post-HER2-targeted therapy. Initial enhancement ratio (IER, initial enhancement percentage over baseline at first postcontrast imaging), pattern of tumor shrinkage, and Dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE)-MRI imaging features were assessed. Wilcoxon rank, Spearman correlation, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to correlate MRI imaging features with pCR. IER reader agreement was evaluated by intraclass correlation. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate multivariate associations with pCR. Results 56.9% (29/51) of patients had pCR at surgery. Concentric tumor shrinkage pattern was associated with pCR (p = 0.001, Area under the curve (AUC) 0.778): accuracy 80.4%, specificity 96.6%, and sensitivity of 59.1%. There was no association with pCR and imaging response as defined by RECIST criteria (p = 0.169), pretreatment IER (Reader 1 (R1) p = 0.665, Reader 2 (R2) p = 0.766), or lesion size (p = 0.69). IER was associated with axillary metastases (R1 p = 0.016, R2 Conclusion The shrinkage pattern of HER2-positive tumors after targeted therapy may be associated with pCR. There was no association between IER and pCR. Future studies evaluating the correlation of shrinkage patterns to texture radiomics are of interest.

As the proportion of women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer increases, the role of imaging for staging and surveillance purposes is considered. National and international guidelines discourage the use of staging imaging for asymptomatic patients newly diagnosed with stage 0 to II breast cancer, even if there is nodal involvement, as unnecessary imaging can delay care and affect outcomes. In asymptomatic patients with a history of stage I breast cancer that received treatment for curative intent, there is no role for imaging to screen for distant recurrences. However, routine surveillance with an annual mammogram is the only imaging test that should be performed to detect an in-breast recurrence or a new primary breast cancer in women with a history of stage I breast cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is challenging due to unique physiologic and structural breast changes that increase the difficulty of clinical and radiological evaluation. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is increasing as more women delay child bearing into the fourth decade of life, and imaging of clinical symptoms should not be delayed. PABC may present as a palpable lump, nipple discharge, diffuse breast enlargement, focal pain, or milk rejection. Breast imaging during lactation is very similar to breast imaging in women who are not breast feeding. However, breast imaging during pregnancy is modified to balance both maternal and fetal well-being; and there is a limited role for advanced breast imaging techniques in pregnant women. Mammography is safe during pregnancy and breast cancer screening should be tailored to patient age and breast cancer risk. Diagnostic breast imaging during pregnancy should be obtained to evaluate clinical symptoms and for loco-regional staging of newly diagnosed PABC. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Rationale and Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate breast lesion outcomes in patients after canceled MRI-guided breast biopsy due to lesion nonvisualization. Materials and Methods Electronic medical records (January 2007–December 2014) were searched for patients with canceled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsies due to lesion nonvisualization. A total of 1403 MRI-detected lesions were scheduled for MRI-guided biopsy and 89 were canceled because of nonvisualization. Imaging studies and medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and subsequent malignancy. Patients without adequate MRI follow-up imaging were excluded. Statistical analysis was employed to determine if patient demographics or lesion characteristics were predictive of lesion resolution or lesion biopsy after subsequent follow-up. Results Eighty-nine (6.3% [89/1403]; 95% confidence interval, 5.2%–7.7%) biopsies in 89 women were canceled because of nonvisualization. Follow-up MRIs greater than 5.5 months were available for 60.7% (54/89) of women. In 74.1% (40/54) of these patients, the lesions completely resolved on follow-up. In 25.9% (14/54) of the patients, the lesion persisted on follow-up; 42.9% (6/14) of these patients underwent biopsy. One case (1.9% [1/54]) yielded ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion at the 6-month follow-up. No patient demographics or lesion features were associated with lesion resolution or lesion biopsy. Conclusions The majority of canceled MRI-guided biopsy lesions resolved on later follow-up; however, because of the small possibility of a missed malignancy, follow-up MRI imaging at 6 months is recommended.

Purpose To evaluate transgender patient care, gender inclusivity, and transgender health-related policies at breast imaging facilities across the United States. Methods A survey on breast imaging facilities’ policies and practices regarding transgender care was distributed to the membership of the Society of Breast Imaging, consisting of approximately 2,500 breast radiologists across the United States. The survey was conducted by e-mail in January 2018. Results There were 144 survey respondents. Responses showed that 78.5% of facilities have gender-neutral patient bathrooms, 9.0% have a separate waiting area for transgender patients, and 76.4% do not have dominant pink hues in their facilities, although 54.2% have displays with female gender content. Also, 58.0% of intake forms do not ask patients to provide their gender identity, although 25.9% automatically populate with female phrases. Within the electronic health record, 32.9% lack a distinct place to record patients’ preferred names and 54.9% lack a distinct place to record patients’ gender pronouns. The majority (73.4%) do not have explicit policies related to the care of transgender patients. Only 14.7% of facilities offer lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender training. Conclusion Our national survey demonstrates that many breast imaging facilities do not have structures in place to consistently use patients’ preferred names and pronouns, nor provide inclusive environments for transgender patients. All breast imaging facilities should recognize the ways in which their practices may intensify discrimination, exclusivity, and stigma for transgender patients and should seek to improve their transgender health competencies and foster more inclusive environments.

Rationale and Objectives The present study aims to assess associations of Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates with local mammography facility and radiologist availability. Materials and Methods Mammography screening rates for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were obtained for US counties using the County Health Rankings data set. County-level certified mammography facility counts were obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration. County-level mammogram-interpreting radiologist and breast imaging subspecialist counts were determined using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee-for-service claims files. Spearman correlations and multivariable linear regressions were performed using counties' facility and radiologist counts, as well as counts normalized to counties' Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary volume and land area. Results Across 3035 included counties, average screening mammography rates were 60.5% ± 8.2% (range 26%–88%). Correlations between county-level screening rates and total mammography facilities, facilities per 100,000 square mile county area, total mammography-interpreting radiologists, and mammography-interpreting radiologists per 100,000 county-level Medicare beneficiaries were all weak (r = 0.22–0.26). Correlations between county-level screening rates and mammography rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, total breast imaging subspecialist radiologists, and breast imaging subspecialist radiologists per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries were all minimal (r = 0.06–0.16). Multivariable analyses overall demonstrated radiologist supply to have a stronger independent effect than facility supply, although effect sizes remained weak for both. Conclusion Mammography facility and radiologist supply-side factors are only weakly associated with county-level Medicare beneficiary screening mammography rates, and as such, screening mammography may differ from many other health-care services. Although efforts to enhance facility and radiologist supply may be helpful, initiatives to improve screening mammography rates should focus more on demand-side factors, such as patient education and primary care physician education and access.

Breast implant imaging varies depending on patient age, implant type, and symptoms. For asymptomatic patients (any age, any implant), imaging is not recommended. Rupture of saline implants is often clinically evident, as the saline is resorbed and there is a change in breast contour. With saline implants and equivocal clinical findings, ultrasound (US) is the examination of choice for patients less than 30 years of age, either mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age, and mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. For patients with suspected silicone implant complication, MRI without contrast or US is used for those less than 30 years of age; MRI without contrast, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis, or US may be used for those 30 to 39 years of age; and MRI without contrast or mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is used for those 40 years and older. Patients with unexplained axillary adenopathy and silicone implants (current or prior) are evaluated with axillary US. For patients 30 years and older, mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis is performed in conjunction with US. Last, patients with suspected breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma are first evaluated with US, regardless of age or implant type. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

This article reviews new developments in breast imaging. There is growing interest in creating a shorter, less expensive MR protocol with broader applicability. There is an increasing focus on and consideration for the additive impact that functional analysis of breast pathology have on identifying and characterizing lesions. These developments apply to MR imaging and molecular imaging. This article reviews evolving breast imaging techniques with attention to strengths, weaknesses, and applications of these approaches. We aim to give the reader familiarity with the state of current developments in the field and to increase awareness of what to expect in breast imaging.

Patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancers are often treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical intervention. The primary aims of this approach are to: 1) reduce tumor burden thereby permitting breast conservation rather than mastectomy; 2) promptly treat possible metastatic disease, whether or not it is detectable on preoperative staging; and 3) potentially tailor future chemotherapeutic decisions by monitoring in-vivo tumor response. Accurate radiological assessment permits optimal management and planning in this population. However, assessment of tumor size and response to treatment can vary depending on the modality used, the measurement technique (such as single longest diameter, 3-D measurements, or calculated tumor volume), and varied response of different tumor subtypes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (such as concentric shrinkage or tumor fragmentation). As discussed in further detail, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, US and MRI represent the key modalities with potential to help guide patient management. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Rationale and Objectives To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. Materials and Methods Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1–5 scale). Results There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87–1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score ≥ 4/5). Conclusions DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.

Breast pain is a common complaint. However, in the absence any accompanying suspicious clinical finding (eg, lump or nipple discharge), the association with malignancy is very low (0%-3.0%). When malignancy-related, breast pain tends to be focal (less than one quadrant) and persistent. Pain that is clinically insignificant (nonfocal [greater than one quadrant], diffuse, or cyclical) requires no imaging beyond what is recommended for screening. In cases of pain that is clinically significant (focal and noncyclical), imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and ultrasound are appropriate, depending on the patient's age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Appropriate imaging evaluation of nipple discharge depends the nature of the discharge. Imaging is not indicated for women with physiologic nipple discharge. For evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge, multiple breast imaging modalities are rated for evidence-based appropriateness under various scenarios. For women age 40 or older, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be the initial examination. Ultrasound is usually added as a complementary examination, with some exceptions. For women age 30 to 39, either mammogram or ultrasound may be used as the initial examination on the basis of institutional preference. For women age 30 or younger, ultrasound should be the initial examination, with mammography/DBT added when ultrasound shows suspicious findings or if the patient is predisposed to developing breast cancer. For men age 25 or older, mammography/DBT should be performed initially, with ultrasound added as indicated, given the high incidence of breast cancer in men with pathologic nipple discharge. Although MRI and ductography are not usually appropriate as initial examinations, each may be useful when the initial standard imaging evaluation is negative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Women newly diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer have an early-stage disease that can be effectively treated. Evidence provides little justification for performing imaging to exclude metastasis in asymptomatic women with stage I breast cancer. No differences have been found in survival or quality of life in women regardless of whether they underwent initial workup for metastatic disease. These women generally prefer intensive follow-up to detect an early recurrence. However, survival rates do not differ between women who obtain intensive screening and surveillance, with imaging and laboratory studies, and women who undergo testing only as a result of development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. In addition, quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients. Additional imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review by the panel include extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. When evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Purpose The purpose was to evaluate the relationship between body mass index (BMI), mammographic breast density, magnetic resonance (MR) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and MR fibroglandular tissue (FGT) in women with breast cancer. Methods Our institutional database was queried for patients with preoperative mammography and breast MR imaging. Results There were 573 women eligible for analysis. Elevated BMI was associated with advanced stage of disease ( P =.01), lower mammographic density ( P P P =.005), and nonpalpable lesions ( P =.04). Conclusions Higher BMI was associated with decreased breast density and FGT. Higher BMI was also associated with advanced stage disease and nonpalpable tumors on clinical exam.

Objective This study evaluates use of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging protocol with T2-weighted imaging in detecting biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer. Materials and methods This is an institutional review board approved retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer (88% invasive; 12% in situ) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. In three separate sessions, three breast imagers evaluated (1) T1-weighted non-contrast, post-contrast and post-contrast subtracted images, (2) T1-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging, and (3) T1-weighted images and T2-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging. Protocols were compared for cancer detection, reading time and lesion conspicuity. An independent breast radiologist retrospectively analyzed initial enhancement ratio of cancers and retrospectively reviewed lesion morphology and final pathology. Results All 107 cancers were identified at first protocol by at least one reader; five cancers were missed by either one or two readers. One cancer was missed by one reader at protocols two and three. Mean percentage detection for protocol one was 97.8%; protocol two, 99.4%, protocol three, 99.4%. T2-weighted images did not alter cancer detection but increased lesion conspicuity for 2/3 readers. 3/5 missed lesions were low grade cancers. Initial enhancement ratio was positively associated with increasing tumor grade ( p = 0.031) and pathology ( p = 0.002). Reader interpretation time decreased and lesion conspicuity increased as initial enhancement ratio increased. Conclusion Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging has high rate of detection for known breast cancer and short interpretation time. T2 weighted imaging increased lesion conspicuity without altering detection rate. Initial enhancement ratio correlated with invasive disease and tumor grade.

Background Younger women tend to have dense breasts and early detection of breast cancer in this population remains challenging. Although MRI is more sensitive than mammography, MRI is associated with a greater false positive rate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship of MR imaging and clinical characteristics in young women with breast cancer. Methods The Breast Cancer Database at our medical center was queried for all women who had a mammogram and MRI from 2010–2014. Variables included demographics, risk factors, tumor characteristics, mammographic breast density (MBD), background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and assessment of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) with contiguous MR images. Statistical analyses included Pearson's Chi Square Tests. Results Of 1829 women, 111 (6%) were p p =0.02), stage II–III tumors ( p p =0.006), HER2-positive tumors ( p =0.005) and higher Ki-67 scores ( p =0.02). Younger women had increased MBD ( p p p =0.70). Conclusions Younger women had more palpable lesions and increased MBD and FGT. However, BPE was not significantly different between age groups. This suggests that BPE may not contribute to the increase in false positives associated with MRI in premenopausal women. These results underscore the importance of the clinical breast exam and breast self-awareness in young women who do not undergo routine screening. Microabstract Younger women with breast cancer often present with palpable lesions and more advanced breast disease. Younger women tend to have increased breast density, but there is a dearth of literature on MRI characteristics in this population. Since younger women have increased breast density and are not routinely screened, improved monitoring with clinical breast exams and breast self-awareness may be important.

To evaluate the relationship between mammographic density, background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on MRI in women with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared to women with non-triple negative breast cancer (non-TNBC).The institutional Breast Cancer Database was queried to identify the clinicopathologic and imaging characteristics among women who underwent mammography and breast MRI between 2010-2018. Statistical analyses included Pearson's Chi Square, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and logistic regression.Of 2995 women, 225 (7.5 %) had TNBC with a median age of 60 years (23-96) and median follow-up of 5.69 years. Compared to women with non-TNBC, TNBC was associated with African-American race 36/225 (16 %), BRCA1,2 positivity 34/225 (15.1 %), previous history of breast cancer 35/225 (15.6 %), presenting on breast exam 126/225 (56 %) or MRI 13/225 (5.8 %), palpability 133/225 (59.1 %), more invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) 208/225 (92.4 %), higher stage (stage III) 37/225 (16.5 %), higher grade (grade 3) 186/225 (82.7 %) (all p0.001), lower mammographic breast density (MBD) 18/225 (8 %) (p = 0.04), lower fibroglandular tissue (FGT) 17/225 (7.6 %) (p = 0.01), and lower background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) 89/225 (39.8 %) (p = 0.02). Nine of 225 (4 %) women with TNBC experienced recurrence with no significant association with MBD, FGT, or BPE. There was no significant difference in median age of our TNBC and non-TNBC cohorts.The higher proportion of women with lower MBD, FGT and BPE in women with TNBC suggests that MBD, amount of FGT and degree of BPE may be associated with breast cancer risk in women with TNBC.

Polyacrylamide gel (PAAG) injection remains an uncommon method of breast augmentation. Providers must recognize the clinical and radiological manifestations to optimize management. The clinical and radiological findings of PAAG injection may mimic malignancy and silicone breast augmentation. We described two patients with prior PAAG breast augmentation with physical exam and imaging findings concerning for malignancy. We reviewed the literature on PAAG breast augmentation and compare PAAG to silicone breast augmentation. The management of such patients is discussed.

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is increasingly performed for a variety of indications, most commonly with the goal of detecting breast cancer. Percutaneous biopsy (usually under MR guidance or ultrasound if there is a correlating finding) is commonly used to evaluate suspicious imaging findings detected on MR imaging with the goal of identifying malignancy. It is important to be familiar with the characteristics and management of high-risk lesions detected or biopsied under MR guidance. This review focuses on the appearance of a variety of breast lesions detected on MR imaging that require excision with focus on pathologic correlation.

Water in its various forms affects passive microwave measurements of the Earth. Current and future satellite based microwave radiometer observing systems collect data during times when dew may be present. In this article, a review of studies dealing with or related to the effect of dew on microwave radiometer observations is conducted. The basic principles involved in dew formation are described, and its magnitude is quantified. Results indicate that dew is unlikely to have a significant effect on passive microwave observations at frequencies of interest for soil moisture remote sensing.