Search

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being used to treat early-stage triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor 2-overexpressing breast cancers, as well as locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancers. The rationales for neoadjuvant therapy are to shrink tumor size and potentially decrease the extent of surgery, to serve as an in vivo test of response to therapy, and to reveal prognostic information for the patient. MRI is the most accurate modality to demonstrate response to therapy and to help ensure accurate presurgical planning. Changes in lesion diameter, volume, and enhancement are used to predict complete response, partial response, or nonresponse to therapy. However, residual disease may be overestimated or underestimated at MRI. Fibrosis, necrotic tumors, and residual benign masses may be causes of overestimation of residual disease. Nonmass lesions, invasive lobular carcinoma, hormone receptor-positive tumors, nonconcentric shrinkage patterns, the use of antiangiogenic therapy, and late-enhancing foci may be causes of underestimation of residual disease. In patients with known axillary lymph node metastasis, neoadjuvant therapy may be followed by targeted axillary dissection to avoid the potential morbidity associated with an axillary lymph node dissection. Diffusion-weighted imaging, radiomics, machine learning, and deep learning methods are under investigation to improve MRI accuracy in predicting treatment response.©RSNA, 2021.

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.

Objective The A6702 multisite trial confirmed that apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measures can improve breast MRI accuracy and reduce unnecessary biopsies, but also found that technical issues rendered many lesions non-evaluable on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). This secondary analysis investigated factors affecting lesion evaluability and impact on diagnostic performance. Methods The A6702 protocol was IRB-approved at 10 institutions; participants provided informed consent. In total, 103 women with 142 MRI-detected breast lesions (BI-RADS assessment category 3, 4, or 5) completed the study. DWI was acquired at 1.5T and 3T using a four b-value, echo-planar imaging sequence. Scans were reviewed for multiple quality factors (artifacts, signal-to-noise, misregistration, and fat suppression); lesions were considered non-evaluable if there was low confidence in ADC measurement. Associations of lesion evaluability with imaging and lesion characteristics were determined. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared using bootstrapping. Results Thirty percent (42/142) of lesions were non-evaluable on DWI; 23% (32/142) with image quality issues, 7% (10/142) with conspicuity and/or localization issues. Misregistration was the only factor associated with non-evaluability (P = 0.001). Smaller (≤10 mm) lesions were more commonly non-evaluable than larger lesions (p Conclusion Image quality remains a technical challenge in breast DWI, particularly for smaller lesions. Protocol optimization and advanced acquisition and post-processing techniques would help to improve clinical utility.

Architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can occur due to benign and malignant causes. With DBT, there is an increase in the detection of architectural distortion compared with 2D digital mammography, and the positive predictive value is high enough to justify tissue sampling when imaging findings are confirmed. Workup involves supplemental DBT views and ultrasound, with subsequent image-guided percutaneous biopsy using the modality on which it is best visualized. If architectural distortion is subtle and/or questionable on diagnostic imaging, MRI may be performed for problem solving, with subsequent biopsy of suspicious findings using MRI or DBT guidance, respectively. If no suspicious findings are noted on MRI, a six-month follow-up DBT may be performed. On pathology, malignant cases are noted in 6.8%–50.7% of the cases, most commonly due to invasive ductal carcinoma, followed by invasive lobular carcinoma. Radial scars are the most common benign cause, with stromal fibrosis and sclerosing adenosis being much less common. As there is an increase in the number of benign pathological outcomes for architectural distortion on DBT compared with 2D digital mammography, concordance should be based on the level of suspicion of imaging findings. As discordant cases have upgrade rates of up to 25%, surgical consultation is recommended for discordant radiologic-pathologic findings.

Axillary lymph node (LN) metastasis is the most important predictor of overall recurrence and survival in patients with breast cancer, and accurate assessment of axillary LN involvement is an essential component in staging breast cancer. Axillary management in patients with breast cancer has become much less invasive and individualized with the introduction of sentinel LN biopsy (SLNB). Emerging evidence indicates that axillary LN dissection may be avoided in selected patients with node-positive as well as node-negative cancer. Thus, assessment of nodal disease burden to guide multidisciplinary treatment decision making is now considered to be a critical role of axillary imaging and can be achieved with axillary US, MRI, and US-guided biopsy. For the node-positive patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, restaging of the axilla with US and MRI and targeted axillary dissection in addition to SLNB is highly recommended to minimize the false-negative rate of SLNB. Efforts continue to develop prediction models that incorporate imaging features to predict nodal disease burden and to select proper candidates for SLNB. As methods of axillary nodal evaluation evolve, breast radiologists and surgeons must work closely to maximize the potential role of imaging and to provide the most optimized treatment for patients.

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.

Breast MRI offers high sensitivity for breast cancer detection, with preferential detection of high-grade invasive cancers when compared to mammography and ultrasound. Despite the clear benefits of breast MRI in cancer screening, its cost, patient tolerance, and low utilization remain key issues. Abbreviated breast MRI, in which only a select number of sequences and postcontrast imaging are acquired, exploits the high sensitivity of breast MRI while reducing table time and reading time to maximize availability, patient tolerance, and accessibility. Worldwide studies of varying patient populations have demonstrated that the comparable diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated breast MRI is comparable to a full diagnostic protocol, highlighting the emerging role of abbreviated MRI screening in patients with an intermediate and high lifetime risk of breast cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize the background and current literature relating to abbreviated MRI, highlight various protocols utilized in current multicenter clinical trials, describe workflow and clinical implementation issues, and discuss the future of abbreviated protocols, including advanced MRI techniques.

Current guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients undergoing mastectomy for a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We examined the factors associated with sentinel lymph node positivity for patients undergoing mastectomy for a diagnosis of DCIS on preoperative core biopsy (PCB). The Institutional Breast Cancer Database was queried for patients with PCB demonstrating pure DCIS followed by mastectomy and SLNB from 2010 to 2018. Patients were divided according to final pathology (DCIS or invasive cancer). Clinico-pathologic variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and logistic regression. Of 3145 patients, 168(5%) had pure DCIS on PCB and underwent mastectomy with SLNB. On final mastectomy pathology, 120(71%) patients had DCIS with 0 positive sentinel lymph nodes (PSLNs) and 48(29%) patients had invasive carcinoma with 5(10%) cases of ≥1 PSLNs. Factors positively associated with upstaging to invasive cancer in univariate analysis included age (P = .0289), palpability (P < .0001), extent of disease on imaging (P = .0121), mass on preoperative imaging (P = .0003), multifocality (P = .0231) and multicentricity (P = .0395). In multivariate analysis, palpability (P = .0080), extent of disease on imaging (P = .0074) and mass on preoperative imaging (P = .0245) remained significant (Table 2). In a subset of patients undergoing mastectomy for DCIS with limited disease on preoperative evaluation, SLNB may be omitted as the risk of upstaging is low. However, patients who present with clinical findings of palpability, large extent of disease on imaging and mass on preoperative imaging have a meaningful risk of upstaging to invasive cancer, and SLNB remains important for management.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary biopsies are done around the world at a tremendous cost. It is crucial to reduce the rate of biopsies that turn out to be benign tissue. In this study, we build deep neural networks (DNNs) to classify biopsied lesions as being either malignant or benign, with the goal of using these networks as second readers serving radiologists to further reduce the number of false-positive findings. We enhance the performance of DNNs that are trained to learn from small image patches by integrating global context provided in the form of saliency maps learned from the entire image into their reasoning, similar to how radiologists consider global context when evaluating areas of interest. Our experiments are conducted on a dataset of 229,426 screening mammography examinations from 141,473 patients. We achieve an AUC of 0.8 on a test set consisting of 464 benign and 136 malignant lesions.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Purpose Sodium MRI has shown promise for monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer. The purpose of this work was to build a dual-tuned bilateral proton/sodium breast coil for 7T MRI that provides sufficient SNR to enable sodium breast imaging in less than 10 minutes. Methods The proton/sodium coil consists of 2 shielded unilateral units: 1 for each breast. Each unit consists of 3 nested layers: (1) a 3-loop solenoid for sodium excitation, (2) a 3-loop solenoid for proton excitation and signal reception, and (3) a 4-channel receive array for sodium signal reception. Benchmark measurements were performed in phantoms with and without the sodium receive array insert. In vivo images were acquired on a healthy volunteer. Results The sodium receive array boosted 1.5 to 3 times the SNR compared with the solenoid. Proton SNR loss due to residual interaction with the sodium array was less than 10%. The coil enabled sodium imaging in vivo with 2.8-mm isotropic nominal resolution (~5-mm real resolution) in 9:36 minutes. Conclusion The coil design that we propose addresses challenges associated with sodium's low SNR from a hardware perspective and offers the opportunity to investigate noninvasively breast tumor metabolism as a function of sodium concentration in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The degree of normal fibroglandular tissue that enhances on breast MRI, known as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), was initially described as an incidental finding that could affect interpretation performance. While BPE is now established to be a physiologic phenomenon that is affected by both endogenous and exogenous hormone levels, evidence supporting the notion that BPE frequently masks breast cancers is limited. However, compelling data have emerged to suggest BPE is an independent marker of breast cancer risk and breast cancer treatment outcomes. Specifically, multiple studies have shown that elevated BPE levels, measured qualitatively or quantitatively, are associated with a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Evidence also suggests that BPE could be a predictor of neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment response and overall breast cancer treatment outcomes. These discoveries come at a time when breast cancer screening and treatment have moved toward an increased emphasis on targeted and individualized approaches, of which the identification of imaging features that can predict cancer diagnosis and treatment response is an increasingly recognized component. Historically, researchers have primarily studied quantitative tumor imaging features in pursuit of clinically useful biomarkers. However, the need to segment less well-defined areas of normal tissue for quantitative BPE measurements presents its own unique challenges. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the optimal timing on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for BPE quantitation. This article comprehensively reviews BPE with a particular focus on its potential to increase precision approaches to breast cancer risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. It also describes areas of needed future research, such as the applicability of BPE to women at average risk, the biological underpinnings of BPE, and the standardization of BPE characterization. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:43-61.

The purpose of this article is to compare commonly used breast cancer risk assessment models, describe the machine learning approach and big data in risk prediction, and summarize the potential benefits and harms of restrictive risk-based screening.The commonly used risk assessment models for breast cancer can be complex and cumbersome to use. Each model incorporates different sets of risk factors, which are weighted differently and can produce different results for the same patient. No model is appropriate for all subgroups of the general population and only one model incorporates mammographic breast density. Future development of risk prediction tools that are generalizable and simpler to use are needed in guiding clinical decisions.

Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is a standard evidence-based component of supplemental screening in conjunction with mammography for higher-risk populations because of its high sensitivity for detecting breast cancer; the use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk populations is recommended in multiple national and international guidelines. The current MRI exam, however, is expensive relative to other screening technologies such as mammography, and relatively more time-intensive. Recent investigations have focused on techniques that have the potential for improving efficiency of the breast MRI exam, decreasing acquisition and reading times, without impacting diagnostic accuracy. The purpose of this article is therefore to provide an overview of current MRI guidelines for screening for breast cancer and to discuss evolving technological approaches to breast MRI, in particular abbreviated and ultrafast MRI protocols, as well as MRI protocols without contrast that have the potential to improve MRI screening. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1212-1221.

Contains fulltext : 208984.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Multiple studies in the first decade of the 21(st) century have established contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening modality for women with a hereditary or familial increased risk for the development of breast cancer. In recent studies, in women with various risk profiles, the sensitivity ranges between 81% and 100%, which is approximately twice as high as the sensitivity of mammography. The specificity increases in follow-up rounds to around 97%, with positive predictive values for biopsy in the same range as for mammography. MRI preferentially detects the more aggressive/invasive types of breast cancer, but has a higher sensitivity than mammography for any type of cancer. This performance implies that in women screened with breast MRI, all other examinations must be regarded as supplemental. Mammography may yield ~5% additional cancers, mostly ductal carcinoma in situ, while slightly decreasing specificity and increasing the costs. Ultrasound has no supplemental value when MRI is used. Evidence is mounting that in other groups of women the performance of MRI is likewise superior to more conventional screening techniques. Particularly in women with a personal history of breast cancer, the gain seems to be high, but also in women with a biopsy history of lobular carcinoma in situ and even women at average risk, similar results are reported. Initial outcome studies show that breast MRI detects cancer earlier, which induces a stage-shift increasing the survival benefit of screening. Cost-effectiveness is still an issue, particularly for women at lower risk. Since costs of the MRI scan itself are a driving factor, efforts to reduce these costs are essential. The use of abbreviated MRI protocols may enable more widespread use of breast MRI for screening. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:377-390.

BACKGROUND: Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0–III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. CONCLUSION: In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely adopted in breast imaging in both screening and diagnostic settings. The benefits of DBT are well established. Compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM), DBT preferentially increases detection of invasive cancers without increased detection of in-situ cancers, maximizing identification of biologically significant disease, while mitigating overdiagnosis. The higher sensitivity of DBT for architectural distortion allows increased diagnosis of invasive cancers overall and particularly improves the visibility of invasive lobular cancers. Implementation of DBT has decreased the number of recalls for false-positive findings at screening, contributing to improved specificity at diagnostic evaluation. Integration of DBT in diagnostic examinations has also resulted in an increased percentage of biopsies with positive results, improving diagnostic confidence. Although individual DBT examinations have a longer interpretation time compared with that for DM, DBT has streamlined the diagnostic workflow and minimized the need for short-term follow-up examinations, redistributing much-needed time resources to screening. Yet DBT has limitations. Although improvements in cancer detection and recall rates are seen for patients in a large spectrum of age groups and breast density categories, these benefits are minimal in women with extremely dense breast tissue, and the extent of these benefits may vary by practice environment and by geographic location. Although DBT allows detection of more invasive cancers than does DM, its incremental yield is lower than that of US and MRI. Current understanding of the biologic profile of DBT-detected cancers is limited. Whether DBT improves breast cancer-specific mortality remains a key question that requires further investigation. ©RSNA, 2021.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health care emergency. Although reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing is the reference standard method to identify patients with COVID-19 infection, chest radiography and CT play a vital role in the detection and management of these patients. Prediction models for COVID-19 imaging are rapidly being developed to support medical decision making. However, inadequate availability of a diverse annotated data set has limited the performance and generalizability of existing models. To address this unmet need, the RSNA and Society of Thoracic Radiology collaborated to develop the RSNA International COVID-19 Open Radiology Database (RICORD). This database is the first multi-institutional, multinational, expert-annotated COVID-19 imaging data set. It is made freely available to the machine learning community as a research and educational resource for COVID-19 chest imaging. Pixel-level volumetric segmentation with clinical annotations was performed by thoracic radiology subspecialists for all COVID-19-positive thoracic CT scans. The labeling schema was coordinated with other international consensus panels and COVID-19 data annotation efforts, the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, the American College of Radiology, and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Study-level COVID-19 classification labels for chest radiographs were annotated by three radiologists, with majority vote adjudication by board-certified radiologists. RICORD consists of 240 thoracic CT scans and 1000 chest radiographs contributed from four international sites. It is anticipated that RICORD will ideally lead to prediction models that can demonstrate sustained performance across populations and health care systems., NA

Contains fulltext : 232884.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: To compare diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast performed with a conventional readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) sequence to when using a prototype simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI (SMS-ss-EPI) acquisition. METHOD: From September 2017 to December 2018, 26 women with histologically proven breast cancer were scanned with the conventional rs-EPI and the SMS-ss-EPI at 3T during the same imaging examination. Four breast radiologists (4-13 years of experience) independently scored both acquired series of 25 women (one case was used for training) for overall image quality (1: extremely poor to 9: excellent) and artifacts (1: very disturbing to 5: not present). All lesions (n=52; 40 malignant, 12 benign) were also evaluated for visibility (1: not visible, 2: visible if location is given, 3: visible). In addition, lesion characteristics were rated, and a BI-RADS score was given. Results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics and the resulting area under the curve (AUCVGC), weighted kappa, McNemar test, and dependent-samples t-test when appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, radiologists significantly preferred the image quality in rs-EPI over that of SMS-ss-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.698, P=0.002). Infolding and ghosting, and distortion artifacts were significantly less apparent in the rs-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.660, P=0.022 and AUCVGC: 0.700 P=0.002, respectively). Lesions were, however, significantly better visible on the SMS-ss-EPI images (AUCVGC: 0.427, P=0.016). Malignant lesions had significantly higher visibility with SMS-ss-EPI (P=0.035). Sensitivity and specificity were comparable between both sequences (P=0.760 and P=0.549, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perceived lower image quality and the increased presence of artifacts in the SMS-ss-EPI sequence, malignant lesions are better visualized using this sequence.

BACKGROUND: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group A6702 multicenter trial helped confirm the potential of diffusion-weighted MRI for improving differential diagnosis of suspicious breast abnormalities and reducing unnecessary biopsies. A prespecified secondary objective was to explore the relative value of different approaches for quantitative assessment of lesions at diffusion-weighted MRI. PURPOSE: To determine whether alternate calculations of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) can help further improve diagnostic performance versus mean ADC values alone for analysis of suspicious breast lesions at MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02022579) enrolled consecutive women (from March 2014 to April 2015) with a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category of 3, 4, or 5 at breast MRI. All study participants underwent standardized diffusion-weighted MRI (b = 0, 100, 600, and 800 sec/mm(2)). Centralized ADC measures were performed, including manually drawn whole-lesion and hotspot regions of interest, histogram metrics, normalized ADC, and variable b-value combinations. Diagnostic performance was estimated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Reduction in biopsy rate (maintaining 100% sensitivity) was estimated according to thresholds for each ADC metric. RESULTS: Among 107 enrolled women, 81 lesions with outcomes (28 malignant and 53 benign) in 67 women (median age, 49 years; interquartile range, 41–60 years) were analyzed. Among ADC metrics tested, none improved diagnostic performance versus standard mean ADC (AUC, 0.59–0.79 vs AUC, 0.75; P = .02–.84), and maximum ADC had worse performance (AUC, 0.52; P < .001). The 25th-percentile ADC metric provided the best performance (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.88), and a threshold using median ADC provided the greatest reduction in biopsy rate of 23.9% (95% CI: 14.8, 32.9; 16 of 67 BI-RADS category 4 and 5 lesions). Nonzero minimum b value (100, 600, and 800 sec/mm(2)) did not improve the AUC (0.74; P = .28), and several combinations of two b values (0 and 600, 100 and 600, 0 and 800, and 100 and 800 sec/mm(2); AUC, 0.73–0.76) provided results similar to those seen with calculations of four b values (AUC, 0.75; P = .17–.87). CONCLUSION: Mean apparent diffusion coefficient calculated with a two–b-value acquisition is a simple and sufficient diffusion-weighted MRI metric to augment diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared with more complex approaches to apparent diffusion coefficient measurement. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Mastectomy may be performed to treat breast cancer or as a prophylactic approach in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, mastectomies may be performed with or without reconstruction. Reconstruction approaches differ and may be autologous, involving a transfer of tissue (skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle) from other parts of the body to the chest wall. Reconstruction may also involve implants. Implant reconstruction may occur as a single procedure or as multistep procedures with initial use of an adjustable tissue expander allowing the mastectomy tissues to be stretched without compromising blood supply. Ultimately, a full-volume implant will be placed. Reconstructions with a combination of autologous and implant reconstruction may also be performed. Other techniques such as autologous fat grafting may be used to refine both implant and flap-based reconstruction. This review of imaging in the setting of mastectomy with or without reconstruction summarizes the literature and makes recommendations based on available evidence. 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: To assess the feasibility of using diffusion-time-dependent diffusional kurtosis imaging (tDKI) to measure cellular-interstitial water exchange time (τ(ex)) in tumors, both in animals and in humans. METHODS: Preclinical tDKI studies at 7 T were performed with the GL261 glioma model and the 4T1 mammary tumor model injected into the mouse brain. Clinical studies were performed at 3 T with women who had biopsy-proven invasive ductal carcinoma. tDKI measurement was conducted using a diffusion-weighted STEAM pulse sequence with multiple diffusion times (20–800 ms) at a fixed echo time, while keeping the b-values the same (0–3000 s/mm(2)) by adjusting the diffusion gradient strength. The tDKI data at each diffusion time t were used for a weighted linear least-squares fit method to estimate the diffusion-time-dependent diffusivity, D(t), and diffusional kurtosis, K(t). RESULTS: Both preclinical and clinical studies showed that, when diffusion time t ≥ 200 ms, D(t) did not have a noticeable change while K(t) decreased monotonically with increasing diffusion time in tumors and t ≥ 100 ms for the cortical ribbon of the mouse brain. The estimated τ(ex) averaged median and interquartile range (IQR) of GL261 and 4T1 tumors were 93 (IQR = 89) ms and 68 (78) ms, respectively. For the cortical ribbon, the estimated τ(ex) averaged median and IQR were 41 (34) ms for C57BL/6 and 30 (17) ms for BALB/c. For invasive ductal carcinoma, the estimated τ(ex) median and IQR of the two breast cancers were 70 (94) and 106 (92) ms. CONCLUSION: The results of this proof-of-concept study substantiate the feasibility of using tDKI to measure cellular-interstitial water exchange time without using an exogenous contrast agent.

The purpose of this work was to develop a novel method to disentangle the intra- and extracellular components of the total sodium concentration (TSC) in breast cancer from a combination of proton ($$^{1}$$ 1 H) and sodium ($$^{23}\hbox {Na}$$ 23 Na ) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. To do so, TSC is expressed as function of the intracellular sodium concentration ($$\hbox {C}_{\text {IC}}$$ C IC ), extracellular volume fraction (ECV) and the water fraction (WF) based on a three-compartment model of the tissue. TSC is measured from $$^{23}\hbox {Na}$$ 23 Na MRI, ECV is calculated from baseline and post-contrast $$^{1}$$ 1 H $$\hbox {T}_{{1}}$$ T 1 maps, while WF is measured with a $$^{1}$$ 1 H chemical shift technique. $$\hbox {C}_{\text {IC}}$$ C IC is then extrapolated from the model. Proof-of-concept was demonstrated in three healthy subjects and two patients with triple negative breast cancer. In both patients, TSC was two to threefold higher in the tumor than in normal tissue. This alteration mainly resulted from increased $$\hbox {C}_{\text {IC}}$$ C IC ($$\sim$$ ∼ 30 mM), which was $$\sim$$ ∼ 130% greater than in healthy conditions (10–15 mM) while the ECV was within the expected range of physiological values (0.2–0.25). Multinuclear MRI shows promise for disentangling $$\hbox {C}_{\text {IC}}$$ C IC and ECV by taking advantage of complementary $$^{1}$$ 1 H and $$^{23}\hbox {Na}$$ 23 Na measurements.

The goals of imaging after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer are to monitor the response to therapy and facilitate surgical planning. MRI has been found to be more accurate than mammography, ultrasound, or clinical exam in evaluating treatment response. However, MRI may both overestimate and underestimate residual disease. The accuracy of MRI is dependent on tumor morphology, histology, shrinkage pattern, and molecular subtype. Emerging MRI techniques that combine functional information such as diffusion, metabolism, and hypoxia may improve MR accuracy. In addition, machine-learning techniques including radiomics and radiogenomics are being studied with the goal of predicting response on pretreatment imaging. This article comprehensively reviews response assessment on breast MRI and highlights areas of ongoing research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2020;52:1587-1606.

Item does not contain fulltext Screening for breast cancer reduces breast cancer-related mortality and earlier detection facilitates less aggressive treatment. Unfortunately, current screening modalities are imperfect, suffering from limited sensitivity and high false-positive rates. Novel techniques in the field of breast imaging may soon play a role in breast cancer screening: digital breast tomosynthesis, contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography, US (automated three-dimensional breast US, transmission tomography, elastography, optoacoustic imaging), MRI (abbreviated and ultrafast, diffusion-weighted imaging), and molecular breast imaging. Artificial intelligence and radiomics have the potential to further improve screening strategies. Furthermore, nonimaging-based screening tests such as liquid biopsy and breathing tests may transform the screening landscape. (c) RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

MRI of the breast is the most sensitive test for breast cancer detection and outperforms conventional imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, or ultrasound. However, the long scan time and relatively high costs limit its widespread use. Hence, it is currently only routinely implemented in the screening of women at an increased risk of breast cancer. To overcome these limitations, abbreviated dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE)‐MRI protocols have been introduced that substantially shorten image acquisition and interpretation time while maintaining a high diagnostic accuracy. Efforts to develop abbreviated MRI protocols reflect the increasing scrutiny of the disproportionate contribution of radiology to the rising overall healthcare expenditures. Healthcare policy makers are now focusing on curbing the use of advanced imaging examinations such as MRI while continuing to promote the quality and appropriateness of imaging. An important cornerstone of value‐based healthcare defines value as the patient's outcome over costs. Therefore, the concept of a fast, abbreviated MRI exam is very appealing, given its high diagnostic accuracy coupled with the possibility of a marked reduction in the cost of an MRI examination. Given recent concerns about gadolinium‐based contrast agents, unenhanced MRI techniques such as diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) are also being investigated for breast cancer diagnosis. Although further larger prospective studies, standardized imaging protocol, and reproducibility studies are necessary, initial results with abbreviated MRI protocols suggest that it seems feasible to offer screening breast DCE‐MRI to a broader population. This article aims to give an overview of abbreviated and fast breast MRI protocols, their utility for breast cancer detection, and their emerging role in the new value‐based healthcare paradigm that has replaced the fee‐for‐service model. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e85–e100.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess whether there is an association between screening mammography and the use of a variety of preventive services in women who are enrolled in Medicare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: U.S. Medicare claims from 2010 to 2014 Research Identifiable Files were reviewed to retrospectively identify a group of women who underwent screening mammography and a control group without screening mammography in 2012. The screened group was divided into positive versus negative results at screening, and the positive subgroup was divided into false-positive and true-positive findings. Multivariate logistic regression models and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to examine the relationship between screening status and the probabilities of undergoing Papanicolaou test, bone mass measurement, or influenza vaccination in the following 2 years. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 555 705 patients, of whom 185 625 (33.4%) underwent mammography. After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, geographic covariates, and baseline preventive care, women who underwent index screening mammography (with either positive or negative results) were more likely than unscreened women to later undergo Papanicolaou test (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.40, 1.58), bone mass measurement (OR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.63, 1.78), and influenza vaccine (OR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 1.53). In women who had not undergone these preventive measures in the 2 years before screening mammography, use of these three services after false-positive findings at screening was no different than after true-negative findings at screening. CONCLUSION: In beneficiaries of U.S. Medicare, use of screening mammography was associated with higher likelihood of adherence to other preventive guidelines, without a negative association between false-positive results and cervical cancer screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

The purpose of this study was to investigate county-level geographic patterns of mammographic screening uptake throughout the United States and to determine the impact of rural versus urban settings on breast cancer screening uptake.This descriptive study used County Health Rankings data to identify the percentage of Medicare enrollees 67-69 years old per county who had at least one mammogram in 2013 or 2012 (uptake). Uptake was matched with U.S. Department of Agriculture Atlas of Rural and Small Town America categorizations along a rural-urban continuum scale from 1 to 9 based on county population size (large urban, population ≥ 20,000 people; small urban,20,000 people) and proximity to a metropolitan area. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.In all, 2,243,294 Medicare beneficiaries were eligible for mammograms. National mean uptake per county was 60.5% (range, 26.0-86.0%). Uptake was significantly higher in metropolitan and large urban counties in 25 states and lower in only one. County-level mammographic uptake was moderately positively correlated with percentage of residents with some college education (r = 0.40, p0.001) and moderately negatively correlated with age-adjusted mortality (r = -0.41, p0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that percentage of white and black residents and age-adjusted mortality rate were the strongest significant independent predictors of uptake.Uptake of mammographic screening services in a Medicare population varies widely at the county level and is generally lowest in rural counties and urban counties with fewer than 20,000 people.

In detection, treatment, and follow-up, male breast cancer has historically lagged behind female breast cancer. On the whole, breast cancer is less common among men than among women, limiting utility of screening, yet the incidence of male breast cancer is rising, and there are men at high risk for breast cancer. While women at high risk for breast cancer are well characterized, with clearly established guidelines for screening, supplemental screening, risk prevention, counseling, and advocacy, men at high risk for breast cancer are poorly identified and represent a blind spot in public health. Today, more standardized genetic counseling and wider availability of genetic testing are allowing identification of high-risk male relatives of women with breast cancer, as well as men with genetic mutations predisposing to breast cancer. This could provide a new opportunity to update our approach to male breast cancer. This article reviews male breast cancer demographics, risk factors, tumor biology, and oncogenetics; recognizes how male breast cancer differs from its female counterpart; highlights its diagnostic challenges; discusses the implications of the widening clinical use of multigene panel testing; outlines current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (version 1, 2018) for high-risk men; and explores the possible utility of targeted screening and surveillance. Understanding the current state of male breast cancer management and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of male breast cancer detection toward targeted precision medicine may be the answer to improving clinical outcomes of this uncommon disease.

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.

Breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) are recognized independent biomarkers for breast cancer risk. For this reason, reproducibility and consistency in objective assessment of these parameters at mammography (breast density) and at magnetic resonance imaging (fibroglandular tissue and BPE) are clinically relevant. However, breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE are manifestations of dynamic physiologic processes and may change in response to both endogenous and exogenous hormonal stimulation. It is therefore important for the radiologist to recognize settings in which hormonal stimulation may alter the appearance of these biomarkers at imaging and to appreciate how such changes may affect risk assessment, cancer detection, and even prognosis. The purpose of this review article is therefore to review key features and means of evaluating breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE at imaging; to detail how endogenous and exogenous hormonal stimuli may affect breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE, potentially affecting radiologic interpretation; and, finally, to provide an update regarding current hormone treatment guidelines and indications that may result in imaging changes through hormone modulation. ©RSNA, 2018.

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.