Search

OBJECTIVES: : To prospectively compare clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a multicenter surveillance of high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : We enrolled asymptomatic women aged ≥ 25: BRCA mutation carriers; first-degree relatives of BRCA mutation carriers, and women with strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer, including those with previous personal breast cancer. RESULTS: : A total of 18 centers enrolled 501 women and performed 1592 rounds (3.2 rounds/woman). Forty-nine screen-detected and 3 interval cancers were diagnosed: 44 invasive, 8 ductal carcinoma in situ; only 4 pT2 stage; 32 G3 grade. Of 39 patients explored for nodal status, 28 (72%) were negative. Incidence per year-woman resulted 3.3% overall, 2.1%

Northern Italy has been one of the European regions reporting the highest number of COVID‐19 cases and deaths. The pandemic spread has challenged the National Health System, requiring reallocation of most of the available health care resources to treat COVID‐19‐positive patients, generating a competition with other health care needs, including cancer. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of developing critical illness after COVID‐19 infection. Thus, mitigation strategies should be adopted to reduce the likelihood of infection in all patients with cancer. At the same time, suboptimal care and treatments may result in worse cancer‐related outcome. In this article, we attempt to estimate the individual risk–benefit balance to define personalized strategies for optimal breast cancer management, avoiding as much as possible a general untailored approach. We discuss and report the strategies our Breast Unit adopted from the beginning of the COVID‐19 outbreak to ensure the continuum of the best possible cancer care for our patients while mitigating the risk of infection, despite limited health care resources. Implications for Practice Managing patients with breast cancer during the COVID‐19 outbreak is challenging. The present work highlights the need to estimate the individual patient risk of infection, which depends on both epidemiological considerations and individual clinical characteristics. The management of patients with breast cancer should be adapted and personalized according to the balance between COVID‐19‐related risk and the expected benefit of treatments. This work also provides useful suggestions on the modality of patient triage, the conduct of clinical trials, the management of an oncologic team, and the approach to patients’ and health workers’ psychological distress., This article discusses strategies employed by an institution in Northern Italy to ensure the continuum of the best possible cancer care during the COVID‐19 pandemic for breast cancer patients while mitigating the risk of infection, despite limited health care resources.

This study evaluated the methods, technical aspects and impact of preoperative radiological guidance in radioguided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) for single nonpalpable breast lesions.A total of 288 patients underwent ROLL before surgery. Human serum albumin macroaggregates labelled with 3.7-7.4 MBq of technetium(99) were injected into the lesion. In the case of ultrasonographic guidance (221/288 patients), inoculum positioning resulted in a change of echogenicity at the lesion site. In the case of mammographic guidance (67/288 patients), iodinated contrast medium was injected following the radiotracer for subsequent mammographic evaluation. Patients underwent surgery within 24 h from ROLL. A gamma-detecting probe was used to locate the lesion during surgery and guide its removal. After excision, the specimen was examined by either ultrasonography or mammography to verify complete lesion removal before histological evaluation.The lesion was correctly localised in 281/288 patients (97.5%). One ROLL procedure failed because surgery could not be performed within 24 h and the radioactivity decayed. Of the six incorrect localisations, 2 were due to the radiological guidance and 4 to technetium(99) dispersion.Radiological guidance in ROLL ensured the outcome of the procedure of localisation and removal of single, nonpalpable breast lesions in the majority of cases.

To evaluate the feasibility, performance, and cost of a breast cancer screening program aimed at 40-49-year-old women and tailored to their risk profile with supplemental ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.The institutional review board approved this study, and informed written consent was obtained. A total of 3017 40-49-year-old women were invited to participate. The screening program was tailored to lifetime risk (Gail test) and mammographic density (according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems [BI-RADS] criteria) with supplemental US or MR imaging and bilateral two-view microdose mammography. The indicators suggested by European guidelines, US incremental cancer detection rate (CDR), and estimated costs were evaluated.A total of 1666 women (67.5% participation rate) were recruited. The average lifetime risk of breast cancer was 11.6%, and nine women had a high risk of breast cancer; 917 women (55.0%) had a high density score (BI-RADS density category 3 or 4). The average glandular dose for screening examinations was 1.49 mGy. Screening US was performed in 835 study participants (50.1%), mostly due to high breast density (800 of 1666 women [48.0%]). Screening MR imaging was performed in nine women (0.5%) at high risk for breast cancer. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 14 women (8.4 cases per 1000 women). Twelve diagnoses were made with microdose mammography, and two were made with supplemental US in dense breasts (2.4 cases per 1000 women). All patients were submitted for surgery, and 10 underwent breast-conserving surgery. The sentinel lymph node was evaluated in 11 patients, resulting in negative findings in six. Pathologic analysis resulted in the diagnosis of four ductal carcinomas in situ and 10 invasive carcinomas (five at stage I).A tailored breast cancer screening program in 40-49-year-old women yielded a greater-than-expected number of cancers, most of which were low-stage disease.

This study investigated the clinical application of a magnetic-resonance (MR)-guided breast biopsy (MRBB) system consisting of a nonmagnetic coaxial needle and a ferromagnetic core biopsy needle.MRBB was performed on 70 breast lesions. The biopsy device consisted of a nonmagnetic 14- to 16-gauge coaxial needle and a ferromagnetic 16- to 18-gauge biopsy needle.Of the 70 lesions, 29 were malignant and 41 nonmalignant. All 29 malignant lesions underwent surgery and were confirmed as malignant at final histology. Of the 41 nonmalignant lesions, 35 underwent follow-up breast MR imaging (mean, 26 ± 19 months), which demonstrated no lesions changes; six lesions underwent surgery because of poor radiological-pathological correlation; of these 6 lesions, 3 were nonmalignant, one was borderline (lobular carcinoma in situ) and two were malignant (well-differentiated tubular carcinoma and infiltrating ductal carcinoma). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy were, respectively, 93.5%, 100%, 100%, 95.1% and 97.1% if the lobular carcinoma in situ was considered a nonmalignant histological result, and 90.6%, 100%, 100%, 92.7% and 95.7% if the lobular carcinoma in situ was considered malignant.MRBB with a ferromagnetic-nonmagnetic coaxial system represented an easy way to perform a biopsy procedure and was easily applicable in the routine clinical setting.

To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol.Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed.Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent.Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2010 Clinical trial registration no. NCT00486473 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100968/-/DC1.

Our purpose was to compare mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).Ninety patients (aged 58.6+/-16.1 years) who were candidates for unilateral (n=81) or bilateral (n=9) mastectomy underwent mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using a coronal three-dimensional gradient-echo sequence with slice thicknessor =3 mm before and after intravenous injection of gadoteridol (0.1 mmol/kg). Mammographic and MR images were evaluated by two offsite readers working in consensus. Pathological examination performed on 5-mm sections covering the whole breast was used as a reference standard.Out of 99 breasts, pathology revealed 26 DCIS in 14 breasts of 14 patients, aged 52.0 +/- 9.6 years. Lesion diameter at pathology was5 mm (n=4);or =5 and10 mm (n=7);or =10 and20 mm (n=3);or =20 mm (n=2); not assessed (n=10). Sensitivity was 35% (9/26) for mammography and 38% (10/26) for MRI (not significant difference, McNemar test). Both mammography and MRI provided a true positive result in seven cases (four of them measured at pathology, with a diameter of 20.0+/-12.9 mm; median 20 mm) and a false negative result in 14 cases (10 of them measured at pathology, with a diameter of 4.2+/-1.9 mm; median 4.6 mm) (p=0.024, Mann-Whitney U test). Only 46% (12/26) of DCIS were detected at mammography and/or MRI; the remaining 54% (14/26) were diagnosed only at pathological examination.When the whole breast is used as the histopathological reference standard, both mammography and MRI show low sensitivity for DCIS.

The clinical use of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is increasing, especially for applications requiring paramagnetic contrast-agent injection. This document presents a synthetic list of acceptable indications with potential advantages for women according to evidence from the literature and the expert opinion of the panel that developed this statement. We generally recommend that breast MR imaging be performed in centres with experience in conventional breast imaging [mammography and ultrasonography (US)] and needle-biopsy procedures (under stereotactic or US guidance) as well as in breast MR imaging and second-look US for findings not revealed by conventional imaging performed before MR imaging. In our opinion, there is no evidence in favour of breast MR imaging as a diagnostic tool to characterise equivocal findings at conventional imaging when needle-biopsy procedures can be performed, nor for the study of asymptomatic, non-high-risk women with negative conventional imaging. After a description of technical and methodological requirements, we define the indications and limitations of breast MR imaging for surveillance of high-risk women, local staging before surgery, evaluation of the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast previously treated for carcinoma, carcinoma of unknown primary syndrome, nipple discharge and breast implants.

The objective of our study was to test dynamic MRI in evaluating mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.One hundred twelve patients with mammographically detected microcalcifications with BI-RADS category 5 (n = 78) or 4 (n = 34) lesions were studied at 17 centers a using 3D gradient-echo dynamic coronal technique (or = 3 mm thickness) and 0.1 mmol/kg of gadoteridol. A pathologic sample was obtained in all cases. Agreement between the major diameter measured on mammography, MRI, or both and the major diameter measured at pathologic examination was calculated in 62 cases.Of the 112 lesions, pathologic examination revealed 37 benign lesions, 33 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 42 invasive carcinomas. The specificity of MRI for benign lesions was 68%. Considering the subgroups of calcifications alone and calcifications associated with masses, the specificity values became 79% and 33%, respectively. The sensitivity of MRI for DCIS was 79%. Analysis of the two subgroups showed sensitivity values of 68% for calcifications alone and of 1% for calcifications associated with masses. The sensitivity for invasive carcinomas was 93%. Analysis of the two subgroups showed sensitivity values to be 92% for calcifications alone and 94% for calcifications associated with masses. Considering the overall results, the sensitivity of MRI was 87%; specificity, 68%; positive predictive value, 84%; negative predictive value, 71%; and accuracy, 80%. Considering the subgroups of calcifications alone and calcifications associated with masses, the sensitivity values became 80% and 97%; the positive predictive values, 86% and 82%; the negative predictive values, 71% and 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.99); and the accuracy values, 80% and 82% (95% CI, 0.66-0.92), respectively. An odds ratio (OR) of 13.54 (95% CI, 5.20-35.28) showed a raised risk of malignant breast tumor in subjects with positive MR examination of mammographically detected suspicious clusters of microcalcifications. The statistical analysis on each subgroup showed an OR of 15.07 (95% CI, 4.73-48.08) for calcifications alone and an OR of 14.00 (95% CI, 1.23-158.84) for calcifications associated with masses. Any significant improvement in the predictive ability of dynamic MRI depending on the extent of calcifications on mammography was not proved. Considering the 62 cases of proved malignancy with measured maximal diameter at pathologic examination, both mammography and MR examination seem to overestimate tumor extent.The not-perfect sensitivity of MRI (87%), when applying our interpretation criteria and imaging sequences, is a crucial point that prevents us from clinical use of MRI in the diagnosis of mammographically detected microcalcifications.

Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of mammography and MRI in the detection of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer.Ninety patients with planned mastectomies (nine bilateral) underwent mammography and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MRI. Off-site reviewers aware of the entry criterion (planned mastectomy) evaluated both examinations for the presence of malignant foci, recording the density pattern on mammography. The gold standard was pathologic examination of the whole excised breast (slice thickness, 5 mm).Of 99 breasts, pathologic findings revealed 52 unifocal, 29 multifocal, and 18 multicentric cancers for a total of 188 malignant foci (158 invasive and 30 in situ). Overall sensitivity was 66% (124/188) for mammography and 81% (152/188) for MRI (p0.001); 72% (113/158) and 89% (140/158) for invasive foci (p0.001); and 37% (11/30) and 40% (12/30) for in situ foci (p0.05, not significant), respectively. Mammography and MRI missed 64 and 36 malignant foci, respectively, with median diameters of 8 and 5 mm (p = 0.033) and an invasive-noninvasive ratio of 2.4:1 (45:19) and 1.0:1 (18:18) (p = 0.043), respectively. The overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 76% (124/164) for mammography and 68% (152/222) for MRI (not significant). In breasts with an almost entirely fatty pattern, sensitivity was 75% for mammography and 80% for MRI (not significant), and the PPV was 73% and 65% (not significant), respectively. In breasts with fibroglandular or dense pattern, the sensitivity was 60% and 81% (p0.001), and the PPV was 78% and 71% (not significant), respectively.MRI was more sensitive than mammography for the detection of multiple malignant foci in fibroglandular or dense breasts. Mammography missed larger and more invasive cancer foci than MRI. A relatively low PPV was a problem for both techniques.

In the present study, following a double-blind, double placebo protocol vs. placebo, we compared the hypotonic effect of intranasal and intravenous glucagon during a double-contrast barium meal examination of the stomach. We found a statistically significant difference between placebo and intranasal or intravenous glucagon in inducing gastric hypomotility, with no significant differences between IN and IV glucagon. The intranasal administration of glucagon has the advantage of being noninvasive and well tolerated by the patients, and might be a valuable aid in upper gastrointestinal examination as well as in CT scan or magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen.