Search

Background: Breast imaging clinics in the United States (U.S.) are increasingly implementing breast cancer risk assessment (BCRA) to align with evolving guideline recommendations but with limited uptake of risk-reduction care. Effectively communicating risk information to women is central to implementation efforts, but remains understudied in the U.S. This study aims to characterize, and identify factors associated with women's interest in and preferences for breast cancer risk communication. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey study of U.S. women presenting for a mammogram between January and March of 2021 at a large, tertiary breast imaging clinic. Survey items assessed women's interest in knowing their risk and preferences for risk communication if considered to be at high risk in hypothetical situations. Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed factors associated with women's interest in knowing their personal risk and preferences for details around exact risk estimates. Results: Among 1119 women, 72.7% were interested in knowing their breast cancer risk. If at high risk, 77% preferred to receive their exact risk estimate and preferred verbal (52.9% phone/47% in-person) vs. written (26.5% online/19.5% letter) communications. Adjusted regression analyses found that those with a primary family history of breast cancer were significantly more interested in knowing their risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0, 2.1, p = 0.04), while those categorized as "more than one race or other" were significantly less interested in knowing their risk (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.9, p = 0.02). Women 60 + years of age were significantly less likely to prefer exact estimates of their risk (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5, 0.98, p < 0.01), while women with greater than a high school education were significantly more likely to prefer exact risk estimates (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5, 4.2, p < 0.001). Conclusion: U.S. women in this study expressed strong interest in knowing their risk and preferred to receive exact risk estimates verbally if found to be at high risk. Sociodemographic and family history influenced women's interest and preferences for risk communication. Breast imaging centers implementing risk assessment should consider strategies tailored to women's preferences to increase interest in risk estimates and improve risk communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Introduction/background: This study estimates the percentage of detectable breast cancers in the screening population that could be found with primary and supplemental screening, and provides cost estimates for population wide supplemental screening in the U.S., Materials and Methods: Published estimates on cancer detection rates of 2D mammography, tomosynthesis (DBT), whole breast ultrasound (US), molecular breast imaging (MBI), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and MRI, the number of mammograms conducted in the United States in 2023, and the proportion of dense breast tissue, were utilized. The maximum number of detectable cancers was projected from incremental cancer detection rates of the most sensitive supplemental screening method. The proportion of cancers detectable for each modality was calculated. In 2023, Medicare reimbursement rates were used to estimate supplemental screening costs., Results: Out of 469,437 detectable cancers, 2D mammography could detect 190,531 (41%), leaving 278,906 undetected. Adding supplemental screening could detect a combined 220,165 cancers (47%) with DBT, 237,596 (51%) with US, 331,727 (71%) with MBI, 377,049 (80%) with CEM and 469,437 (100%) with MRI. The imaging cost in US dollars to provide supplemental screening to all individuals with dense breasts in 2023 was $933M for tomosynthesis, $1.84B for US, $3.87B for CEM, $4.16B for MBI, and $6.36B for MRI., Conclusion: The study highlights potential benefits from supplemental breast cancer screening, suggesting the combination of mammography and breast MRI offers the most effective detection method though at the highest imaging cost. These findings provide valuable insights to guide future research and inform decision-making in supplemental breast cancer screening strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosure The study author(s) make the following disclosures: GE Healthcare, Advisory Board NexEos, Consultant Invicro, Consultant 5 For the Fight Research Funding Fujifilm USA Institutional Research Funding Bayer Institutional Research Funding Lantheus Research Funding Kindle Direct Publishing Royalties, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Health services research (HSR) is a multidisciplinary field of inquiry that examines how health care is structured, providing valuable data on health care outcomes and delivery. Over the past few decades, a shift in the U.S. health care system toward value-based care has placed a priority on health services topics. Health services research has been central to the evolution of breast imaging over this period, with increased emphasis placed on the following: (1) design of appropriate-use criteria for imaging services; (2) determination of cost-effectiveness of imaging protocols and screening regimens guiding policy; and (3) evaluation of policy related to reimbursement for diagnostic imaging and image-guided procedures. Examples of HSR topics that can be applied directly to breast imaging include evaluation of health care availability and accessibility, analysis of health care use patterns, exploration of patient preferences, assessment of technological innovation, development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines and screening strategies, and examination of health care organization and delivery models. Breast imaging radiologists who perform HSR are uniquely positioned to advocate for patients, to promote transformative health care interventions, and to influence policy changes and public health initiatives in breast imaging through analysis of health care data and translation of their research findings. In this Training and Professional Development article, we aim to provide practical approaches to explore interest in HSR and to describe a framework for successful integration of HSR into a breast imaging career., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Breast cancer can develop when breast cells replicate abnormally. It is now a worldwide issue that concerns people's safety all around the world. Every day, women die from breast cancer, which is especially common in the United States. Mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and biopsies may all be used to detect breast cancer. Histopathology (biopsy) is often carried out to examine the image and discover breast cancer. Breast cancer detection at an early stage saves lives. Deep and machine learning models aid in the detection of breast cancer. The aim of the research work is to encourage medical research and the development of technology by employing deep learning models to recognize cancer cells that are small in size. For histological annotation and diagnosis, the proposed technique makes use of the BreCaHAD dataset. Color divergence is caused by differences in slide scanners, staining procedures, and biopsy materials. To avoid overfitting, we used data augmentation with 19 factors, such as scale, rotation, and gamma. The proposed hybrid dilation deep learning model is of two sorts. It illustrates edges, curves, and colors, and it improves the key traits. It utilizes dilation convolution and max pooling for multi-scale information. The proposed dilated unit processes the image and sends the processed features to the Alexnet, and it can recognize minute objects and thin borders by using the dilated residual expanding kernel model. An AUC of 96.15 shows that the new strategy is better than the old one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the development of computer-aided detection (CAD) and artificial or augmented intelligence (AI) for breast radiology examinations and describes the current applications of AI in breast imaging. Although radiologists in other subspecialties may be less familiar with the use of these technologies in their practices, CAD has been used in breast imaging for more than two decades, as mammography CAD programs have been commercially available in the United States since the late 1990s. Likewise, breast radiologists have seen payment for CAD in mammography and breast MRI evolve over time. With the rapid expansion of AI products in radiology in recent years, many new applications for these technologies in breast imaging have emerged. This article outlines the current state of reimbursement for breast radiology AI algorithms within the traditional fee-for-service model used by Medicare and commercial insurers as well as potential future payment pathways. In addition, the inherent challenges of employing the existing payment framework in the United States to AI programs in radiology are detailed for the reader. This article aims to give breast radiologists a better understanding of how AI will be reimbursed as they seek to further incorporate these emerging technologies into their practices to advance patient care and improve workflow efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diversity and inclusion in breast imaging can improve creativity and innovation, enrich the workplace environment, and enhance culturally appropriate care for an increasingly diverse patient population. Current estimates predict the racial and ethnic demographics of the United States population will change markedly by the year 2060, with increases in representation of the Black demographic projected to comprise 15% of the population (currently 13.3%) and the Hispanic/ Latinx demographic projected to comprise 27.5% of the population (currently 17.8%). However, matriculation rates for those who are underrepresented in medicine (URM), defined as "racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population," have remained largely stagnant. Black students comprise only 7.1% of medical student matriculants, and Hispanic/Latinx students comprise only 6.2% of medical school matriculants compared to the general population. The matriculation rate of URM students into diagnostic radiology is even lower, with Black trainees comprising 3.1% of radiology residents and Hispanic/Latinx trainees comprising 4.8% of radiology residents. This lack of URM radiology resident representation leads to a lack of URM potential applicants to breast imaging fellowships due to the pipeline effect. Strategies to improve diversity and inclusion in breast imaging include recruiting a diverse breast imaging workforce, establishing robust mentorship and sponsorship programs, fostering an inclusive training and workplace environment, and retaining and promoting a diverse workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer screening trends of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people remain largely unknown. This is concerning, as data are necessary to inform recommendations made by clinicians to their patients and by national guidelines to clinicians. The aim of this review is to explore the state of existing research literature and provide a summary report of current breast cancer screening rates in TGD adults., Methods: All articles were identified using Medical Subject Headings terms. Inclusion criteria were all the following: (1) documents inclusion of at least one participant who identifies as a TGD person; (2) at least one TGD participant with top surgery or currently receiving estrogen-based gender-affirming hormone therapy; (3) results that report rates of breast cancer screening or mammogram referral., Results: Twelve articles met inclusion criteria, six cross-sectional studies and six retrospective chart reviews. Three studies conducted secondary analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System national dataset, and nine articles recruited their own sample with number of TGD participants ranging from 30 to 1,822 and number of cisgender women ranging from 242 to 18,275. Three studies found lower rates of screening in transfeminine persons receiving gender-affirming care compared with cisgender women; two studies found lower rates among TGD people compared with cisgender women; and three studies found no differences between the breast cancer screening rates of TGD and cisgender participants., Conclusion: Limited studies recruit and report trends in breast cancer screening of TGD people. Those that do include TGD participants have mixed results, but overall TGD people had lower rates of breast cancer screening. More research is needed regarding breast cancer screening of TGD people to inform the development of protocols that ensure equitable access to preventative care., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To assess the percentage of papillomas from all biopsies performed, comparing differences in patient age and race at a single institution. To assess trends in biopsied papillomas at institutions throughout the United States (US). This is a HIPPA-compliant IRB-approved single-institution (Southern1) retrospective review to assess race and age of all-modality-biopsied non-malignant papillomas as a percentage of all biopsies (percentage papillomas calculated as papilloma biopsies/all biopsies) from January 2012 to December 2019. To assess national variation, several academic or large referral centers were contacted to provide data regarding papilloma percentages, biopsy modalities, and trends in case numbers. Trends were estimated using the method of analysis of variance (ANOVA). Comparisons of differences in trends were assessed. Southern1 institution demonstrated a significant association between race and percentage of papillomas (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction at 5% type I family error, the percentage of biopsied papillomas in Black and Asian patients remained significantly higher than in White patients (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0032, respectively) using a Chi-square test. The regional variation in percentage of papillomas was found to be 3–9%. Southern1 institution showed a 7-year significant trend of increase in percentage of papillomas. Other institutions showed a decreasing trend (p < 0.05). Black and Asian women had significantly higher papilloma percentages compared to white patients in our single institution review. This institution also showed a statistically significant trend of increasing percentage papillomas from 2012 to 2019. Multi-institutional survey found regional variation in percentage papillomas, ranging from 3% to 9%. • Single institution data showed that Black and Asian patients experience significantly more papillomas than White patients. • The percentages of papillomas from breast biopsies vary throughout different regions of the country. • Certain institutions may experience different trends in the numbers of papillomas diagnosed over the past several years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is gaining rapid traction following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for diagnostic indications. Contrast-enhanced mammography is an alternative form of mammography that uses a dual-energy technique for image acquisition after the intravenous administration of iodinated contrast material. The resulting exam includes a dual set of images, one that appears similar to a routine 2D mammogram and one that highlights areas of contrast uptake. Studies have shown improved sensitivity compared to mammography and similar performance to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. As radiology groups incorporate CEM into clinical practice they must first select the indications for which CEM will be used. Many practices initially use CEM as an MRI alternative or in cases recommended for biopsy. Practices should then define the CEM clinical workflow and patient selection to include ordering, scheduling, contrast safety screening, and managing imaging on the day of the exam. The main equipment requirements for performing CEM include CEM-capable mammography equipment, a power injector for contrast administration, and imaging-viewing capability. The main staffing requirements include personnel to place the intravenous line, perform the CEM exam, and interpret the CEM. To safely and appropriately perform CEM, staff must be trained in their respective roles and to manage potential contrast-related events. Lastly, informing referring colleagues and patients of CEM through marketing campaigns is helpful for successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging education. Methods: A 22-item survey addressing four themes during the early pandemic (time on service, structured education, clinical training, future plans) was emailed to Society of Breast Imaging members and members-in-training in July 2020. Responses were compared using McNemar's and Mann-Whitney U tests; a general linear model was used for multivariate analysis. Results: Of 136 responses (136/2824, 4.8%), 96 U.S. responses from radiologists with trainees, residents, and fellows were included. Clinical exposure declined during the early pandemic, with almost no medical students on service (66/67, 99%) and fewer clinical days for residents (78/89, 88%) and fellows (48/68, 71%). Conferences shifted to remote live format (57/78, 73%), with some canceled (15/78, 19%). Compared to pre-pandemic, resident diagnostic (75/78, 96% vs 26/78, 33%) (P < 0.001) and procedural (73/78, 94% vs 21/78, 27%) (P < 0.001) participation fell, as did fellow diagnostic (60/61, 98% vs 47/61, 77%) (P = 0.001) and procedural (60/61, 98% vs 43/61, 70%) (P < 0.001) participation. Most thought that the pandemic negatively influenced resident and fellow screening (64/77, 83% and 43/60, 72%, respectively), diagnostic (66/77, 86% and 37/60, 62%), and procedural (71/77, 92% and 37/61, 61%) education. However, a majority thought that decreased time on service (36/67, 54%) and patient contact (46/79, 58%) would not change residents' pursuit of a breast imaging fellowship. Conclusion: The pandemic has had a largely negative impact on breast imaging education, with reduction in exposure to all aspects of breast imaging. However, this may not affect career decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has fallen short of its intended goal to substantially transform the delivery of healthcare by tying clinician payments to quality and cost reduction. Policy makers made changes to the program over its first five years in efforts to address concerns about complexity and lack of meaningful impact on outcomes for our patients. One of these changes, the creation of MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs), aims to streamline reporting of increasingly aligned measures and serve as a stepping-stone for the transition to alternative payment models. As MIPS continues to evolve, these value pathways will provide new opportunities for breast imaging radiologists to participate in value-based care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Supplemental breast cancer screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk of breast cancer. To the authors' knowledge, recent national trends in breast MRI use are unknown. Methods: The authors used claims data from a large national insurer to calculate screening breast MRI rates from 2006 to 2016 in a US cohort of 10 million women aged 20 to 64 years. Use was stratified by subgroups of women with a BRCA mutation, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast cancer history and stratified by age. Joinpoint regression evaluated annual changes in trends. Results: The total sample included 37,447 screening breast MRI examinations in 25,617 women. Overall screening breast MRI rates were low and increased from 2.9 to 12.1 examinations per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. MRI use in women with a BRCA mutation increased by 21% on average annually from 210.8 per 10,000 women to 1562.0 per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. By 2016, women aged 50 to 64 years who had a BRCA mutation had the highest use of breast MRI (1669.6 MRI examinations per 10,000 women) compared with younger women (1198.4 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, 1519.1 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, and 1567.2 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, respectively, among women aged 20‐29 years, 30‐39 years, and 40‐49 years). Women with a BRCA mutation comprised <1% of the current study population but received approximately 9% of screening breast MRI examinations. Breast MRI rates among women with a family history of breast cancer or prior breast cancer history initially increased from 2006 to 2008, but then stabilized or decreased. Conclusions: The increases in breast MRI use observed in the current study have indicated improvements in concordance with breast imaging guidelines. However, women with BRCA mutations remain underscreened, particularly younger women, thereby identifying a clear gap with which to enhance access. The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in clinical care in the United States is improving in concordance with breast imaging guidelines. However, women with BRCA mutations remain underscreened with breast MRI, particularly younger women. This finding identifies a clear gap with which to enhance access and mitigate barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of the current study was to provide insight into the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) on breast cancer screening, breast surgery, and genetics consultations. Methods: User data from a risk assessment company were collected from February 2 to April 11, 2020. The use of risk assessment was used as a proxy for the use of 3 breast cancer services, namely, breast imaging, breast surgery, and genetics consultation. Changes in the use of these services during the study period were analyzed. Results: All 3 services experienced significant declines after the COVID‐19 outbreak. The decline in breast surgery began during the week of March 8, followed by breast imaging and genetics consultation (both of which began during the week of March 15). Breast imaging experienced the most significant reduction, with an average weekly decline of 61.7% and a maximum decline of 94.6%. Breast surgery demonstrated an average weekly decline of 20.5%. When surgical consultation was stratified as breast cancer versus no breast cancer, the decrease among in non–breast cancer patients was more significant than that of patients with breast cancer (a decline of 66.8% vs 11.5% from the pre‐COVID average weekly volume for non–breast cancer patients and patients with breast cancer, respectively). During the week of April 5, use of genetics consultations dropped to 39.9% of the average weekly volumes before COVID‐19. Conclusions: COVID‐19 has had a significant impact on the number of patients undergoing breast cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had a significant impact on the number of patients undergoing breast cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment in the United States. In the current study, user data from a risk assessment company were collected from February 2 to April 11, 2020, with the use of risk assessment used as a proxy to analyze changes in the use of 3 breast cancer services: breast imaging, breast surgery, and genetics consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand physicians' comprehension of breast cancer screening guidelines and the existing literature on breast cancer screening, and whether this contributes to how patient screening is implemented in clinical practice. Methods: A survey of 18 questions was distributed across the United States via e-mail and social media resources to physicians and medical students of all disciplines and levels of training. Responses from 728 physicians and medical students were reviewed. Respondents were from over 200 different institutions and over 60 different medical specialties. Results: Our survey demonstrates that more than half of the participants felt uncomfortable in their knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations (399/728, 54.8%) and existing literature on breast cancer screening (555/728, 76.2%). When stratified based on level of training, those at the attending level reported a greater level of comfort in their knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations (168/238, 70.6%) and literature (95/238, 39.9%) compared with respondents at the trainee level. Attending physicians are also more likely to recommend screening for patients between the ages of 40-49 years old (209/238, 87.7%) compared to those at the trainee level. Responses on whether to screen based on age were most consistent for patients ages 50-74, with greater than 90% of the respondents endorsing screening mammogram for this age group in all levels of training. There were greater inconsistencies in the support to screen age groups 40-49 and 75+. Conclusions: The results showed a disparity in screening practices by clinicians in all levels of training, particularly for patients ages 40-49 and 75+, and for the interval of screening. Later initiation with less frequent intervals between screens may reduce the impact of screening on mortality reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given that breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in the United States, it is necessary to continue improving the sensitivity and specificity of breast imaging systems that diagnose breast lesions. Photoacoustic (PA) imaging can provide functional information during in vivo studies and can augment the structural information provided by ultrasound (US) imaging. A full-ring, all-reflective, illumination system for photoacoustic tomography (PAT) coupled to a full-ring US receiver is developed and tested. The US/PA tomography system utilizes a cone mirror and conical reflectors to optimize light delivery for PAT imaging and has the potential to image objects that are placed within the ring US transducer. The conical reflector used in this system distributes the laser energy over a circular cross-sectional area, thereby reducing the overall fluence. This, in turn, allows the operator to increase the laser energy achieving better cross-sectional penetration depth. A proof-of-concept design utilizing a single cone mirror and a parabolic reflector is used for imaging cylindrical phantoms with light-absorbing objects. For the given phantoms, it has been shown that there was no restriction in imaging a given targeted cross-sectional area irrespective of vertical depth, demonstrating the potential of mirror-based, ring-illuminated PAT system. In addition, the all-reflective ring illumination method shows a uniform PA signal across the scanned cross-sectional area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • IR thermography can detect breast abnormalities prior to cancer development. • IR thermography can identify breast regions warranting subsequent monitoring. • Clinical evidence supports the role of IR thermography in breast cancer screening. • IR imaging technology has advanced significantly since original clinical assessments. • IR thermography is insufficient in diagnosing cancer as a stand-alone test. Abstract Infrared imaging, or digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI), is an FDA-approved adjunct to mammography that can detect thermal abnormalities in the breast associated with breast cancer. Seminal studies in the United States and Europe demonstrated the ability of infrared thermography to detect breast cancer and assess a patient's associated risk and prognosis. This review introduces infrared thermography in the context of breast cancer screening to the scientist or engineer and objectively outlines the clinical evidence for and against the screening technique based on large-population and long-term studies. The progression of infrared technology is briefly summarized, a historical timeline of infrared thermography is outlined, its limitations are discussed, and finally the proper role of infrared thermography in breast cancer screening is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To discuss the development trends and detect the research focus in the field of three-dimensional ultrasonography imaging of breast. Methods: This paper studied articles related to three-dimensional ultrasonography imaging of breast in the PubMed database, and discussed the development status from paper quantities, life circle, country/region distribution and network,affiliation distribution and network and research focus by the method of bibliometrics and visualization. Results: There were 213 articles published in all; 25 countries/regions published papers, with USA being the first place all over the world. More than 100 affiliations were involved, and mainly being hospitals and universities. There were four research focus as follows: three-dimensional elasticity imaging of breast neoplasms, computer-assisted diagnosis of mammography, magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of breast cancer, algorithm study of ultrasonography imaging of breast neoplasms. Conclusions: The field of three-dimensional ultrasonography imaging of breast developed rapidly these years, and its research focus were mainly related to the diagnosis of breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to characterize current practice patterns of abdominal radiologists based on work descriptions within job postings on numerous national radiology specialty websites.Methods: Job postings for either “abdominal” or “body” radiologists were searched weekly on five society websites (SAR, SCBT-MR, ARRS, ACR, RSNA) over a 1-year period. Postings were reviewed for various characteristics.Results: Nine hundred and sixteen total ads for 341 unique abdominal radiologist positions were reviewed (34.6% academic, 64.2% private practice, 1.2% other). Postings occurred most commonly in March (12.3%) and least commonly in November (4.8%). States with most positions were Florida (27), California (26), and New York (24). Of postings delineating expectations of specific abdominal modalities, 67.4% mentioned MRI, 58.5% ultrasound, 41.1% fluoroscopy, 14.3% PET, and 54.0% interventions. Additional non-abdominal expectations included general radiology (28.7%), breast imaging (21.1%), and general nuclear medicine (9.7%). Additional skills included prostate MRI (7.0%), OBGYN ultrasound (5.0%), and CT colonoscopy (2.6%). 79.2% required an abdominal imaging fellowship (specifically a body MRI fellowship in 4.1%).Conclusion: By using job postings for abdominal radiologists, we have taken a practical approach to characterizing the current status of this subspecialty, reflecting recent job expectations and requirements. The large majority of positions required a body fellowship, and the positions commonly entailed a variety of skills beyond non-invasive diagnostic abdominal imaging. Of note, expectations of considerable minorities of positions included abdominal interventions, general radiology, and breast imaging. These insights may guide the development of abdominal radiology fellowships and mini-fellowships, as well as assist radiologists entering or returning to the job market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1989, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved worldwide by the widespread use of screening mammography alongside new developments in breast cancer treatment [1]. The ability of screening mammography to detect cancer early, when treatment is most effective, is optimized when it is performed in the highest quality manner and accessed by all eligible candidates. Currently, worldwide, there are over 14 guidance documents for mammographic quality [2]. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK), monitor quality through a national screening program. In the United States (US), where 39 million mammograms are performed annually [3] , there is not a national screening program, but the federal government mandates minimum quality standards for the performance of mammography. Among a consortium of European countries, the European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF) promotes voluntary adherence to European mammography quality standards. Setting quality standards at national or international levels ensures the uniformity of practice and identifies substandard practices in need of improvement, ultimately maximizing the benefit of screening mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date, there is limited and inconsistent epidemiologic evidence for associations of adolescent diet with mammographic breast density, a strong and consistent predictor of breast cancer. We investigated the association of adolescent fiber intake with mammographic density in premenopausal women.Methods: This study included 743 cancer-free premenopausal women (mean age, 44.9 years) within the Nurses' Health Study II cohort. Percent breast density, absolute dense and non-dense areas were measured from digitized film mammograms using a computer-assisted thresholding technique. Adolescent and adult diet were assessed with a food frequency questionnaire; energy-adjusted nutrient intakes were estimated for each food item. Information regarding breast cancer risk factors was obtained from baseline or biennial questionnaires closest to the mammogram date. We used generalized linear regression to quantify associations between quartiles of adolescent fiber intake and each of the breast density measures, adjusted for potential confounders. Associations were examined separately for total fiber intake; fiber from fruits, vegetables, legumes, and cereal; and food sources of fiber (fruits, vegetables, and nuts).Results: In multivariable analyses, total fiber intake during adolescence was not associated with percent breast density (p for trend = 0.64), absolute dense area (p for trend = 0.80), or non-dense area (p for trend = 0.75). Similarly, neither consumption of fiber from fruits, vegetables, legumes, or cereal nor specific sources of fiber intake (fruits, vegetables, or nuts) during adolescence were associated with any of the mammographic density phenotypes.Conclusions: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that adolescent fiber intake is associated with premenopausal mammographic breast density. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences. Methods: We included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n = 99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n = 230,452 and n = 400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe. Results: Empirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%. Conclusion: Choice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern breast imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, provides an increasingly clear depiction of breast cancer extent, often with suboptimal pathologic confirmation. Pathologic findings guide management decisions, and small increments in reported tumor characteristics may rationalize significant changes in therapy and staging. Pathologic techniques to grossly examine resected breast tissue have changed little during this era of improved breast imaging and still rely primarily on the techniques of gross inspection and specimen palpation. Only limited imaging information is typically conveyed to pathologists, typically in the form of wire-localization images from breast-conserving procedures. Conventional techniques of specimen dissection and section submission destroy the three-dimensional integrity of the breast anatomy and tumor distribution. These traditional methods of breast specimen examination impose unnecessary limitations on correlation with imaging studies, measurement of cancer extent, multifocality, and margin distance. Improvements in pathologic diagnosis, reporting, and correlation of breast cancer characteristics can be achieved by integrating breast imagers into the specimen examination process and the use of large format sections which preserve local anatomy. This paper describes the successful creation of a large-format pathology program to routinely serve all patients in a busy interdisciplinary breast center associated with a community-based nonprofit health system in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of MRI in preoperative staging of breast cancer has escalated recently. Breast MRI has greater sensitivity than mammography, ultrasound, and clinical examination in cancer detection. Because of its variable specificity, however, there has been concern that increased MRI use will result in increased rates of mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. We postulated that mastectomy rates are not affected by trends in MRI use. We performed a retrospective analysis of imaging tests ordered by surgeons at our breast center from 2003 to 2007. We also reviewed all breast cancer cases reported to the National Cancer Database from our institution during the same time period and categorized them as having been treated with mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery. From 2003 to 2007, the number of breast MRIs ordered annually by surgeons increased from 68 to 358. The rate of MRI use increased from 4.1 per every 100 patients seen to 5.7 and from 1.6 per every 100 new patients seen to 2.9. The percentage of women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer remained unchanged during this 5-year interval. Therefore, although MRI use in breast cancer staging and surveillance has increased, mastectomy rates have not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses studies on diagnostic imaging for breast cancer. A study stressed that excision of lobular neoplasia (LN) is unnecessary if careful radiographic-pathologic correlation is performed and strict histologic criteria are adhered when making the diagnosis. A research highlighted the outcomes among breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS)-5 lesion patients who were treated in a community practice in the U.S. from 1998 to 2002. Another study evaluated the efficiency of core biopsy for BI-RADS-5 breast lesions.

Mammography is the only imaging study that has been proven in multiple large randomized trials to decrease breast cancer mortality. Mammography, however, has its limitations and, as such, other modalities that can complement it are being studied. One of these is dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI, which has emerged as an important adjunctive modality and is at present the most sensitive modality that we have to evaluate the breast. The American College of Radiology, in its 2004 practice guidelines, has outlined the 12 current indications for breast MRI. This manuscript reviews and provides examples of each of these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer is a serious disease that accounts for approximately 40,000 deaths per year ill the United States. Unfortunately, there is no known cause of breast cancer, and therefore the best way to prevent mortality is early detection. In the past 15 years, breast cancer mortality has been reduced significantly, which is in part due to screening with film-screen mammography. Nonetheless, conventional mammography lacks sensitivity, especially for certain subgroups of women such as those with dense breast tissue, those under 50 years old, and pre- or perimenopausal women. In addition, mammography has a very poor positive predictive value for biopsy, with 70%-90% of biopsies performed turning out negative. By improving visualization of breast tissue, X-ray computerized tomography (CT) of the breast can potentially provide improvements in diagnostic accuracy over conventional mammography. Owing to recent technological developments in digital detector technology, flat-panel CT imagers dedicated to imaging of the breast are now feasible. A number of academic groups are currently researching dedicated breast CT and prototype systems are currently being evaluated in the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate breast radiologists' practices related to recording sex and gender in the electronic medical record, knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender individuals, and experience and willingness to enter screening mammography data from transgender patients into databases that document service provision and outcomes of cancer detection protocols., Methods: A 19-question anonymous survey was distributed by e-mail to all active physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Response characteristics were assessed as frequencies and percentages and compared between groups using the Fisher exact test or χ 2 test. The degree of agreement between questions was assessed using the McNemar test., Results: Four hundred one radiologists across the United States and Canada responded (response rate 18%). Recording birth-assigned sex distinct from gender identity was reported by 44 of 352 respondents (13%). Depending on geographic region, 38% to 62% of breast radiologists followed screening guidelines for transgender women, and 226 of 349 (65%) did not provide screening recommendations for transgender men. Of 400, 324 (81%) believed that the evidence base for screening transgender individuals is incomplete, and 247 of 352 (70%) were either unsure of or had no Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer competency training. A majority (247 of 401 [62%]) of respondents reported that they would enroll transgender patients in existing or novel national databases., Conclusions: In the practice of breast imaging, there is a substantial need to record transgender and other gender-nonconforming information. Breast radiologists differ in their practice and knowledge regarding screening of transgender women and men but expressed interest in contributing data to facilitate longitudinal databases needed to inform cancer screening guidelines., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Rationale and Objectives: Designed to provide broad-based training in all aspects of imaging, the diagnostic radiology residency program must provide educational experiences that not only provide technical training, but also meet accreditation standards. With the breadth of material to cover during training, carefully orchestrated educational experiences must be planned. This manuscript reports a breast imaging boot camp curriculum with longitudinal outcomes, highlighting the boot camp's pedagogy and adaptability for residencies to meet the challenges of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Diagnostic Radiology Milestones Second Revision., Materials and Methods: Breast block curriculum analysis, faculty leader preparation, and evaluation of all objective external benchmarks were undertaken commencing in 2012 and continuing through 2019. Specific curriculum changes include fundamental didactic lectures and self-study education modules, hands-on simulation activities, and team-building time. Upon publication of The Diagnostic Radiology Milestones Second Revision December 2019, all competencies were assessed in the context of the boot camp resident educational experiences., Results: Following curriculum implementation, resident anonymous evaluation scores of the breast block, resident in-training examination scores, American Board of Radiology Core examination scores, and radiology residency educational website analytics all increased immediately and significantly. The curriculum meets twenty-four Diagnostic Milestones per participating resident when mapped against the newly implemented ACGME requirements., Conclusions: Breast imaging boot camp is a successful innovative curriculum, readily meeting our learners' needs in all objective benchmarks. Further, the adaptable model has the potential to play important roles in assisting residencies to meet the challenges of the ACGME Diagnostic Radiology Milestones Second Revision July 1, 2020 implementation date., (Copyright © 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted breast cancer screening and diagnostic imaging in the United States. We sought to evaluate how medical facilities prioritized breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity or upon re-opening after closures. In fall 2020, we surveyed 77 breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in the United States. The survey ascertained the pandemic's impact on clinical practices during March-September 2020. Nearly all facilities (97%) reported closing or operating at reduced capacity at some point during this period. All facilities were open by August 2020, though 14% were still operating at reduced capacity in September 2020. During periods of re-opening or reduced capacity, 93% of facilities reported prioritizing diagnostic breast imaging over breast cancer screening. For diagnostic imaging, facilities prioritized based on rescheduling canceled appointments (89%), specific indication for diagnostic imaging (89%), patient demand (84%), individual characteristics and risk factors (77%), and time since last imaging examination (72%). For screening mammography, facilities prioritized based on rescheduled cancelations (96%), patient demand (83%), individual characteristics and risk factors (73%), and time since last mammogram (71%). For biopsy services, more than 90% of facilities reported prioritization based on rescheduling of canceled exams, patient demand, patient characteristics and risk factors and level of suspicion on imaging. The observed patterns from this large and geographically diverse sample of facilities in the United States indicate that multiple factors were commonly used to prioritize breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

"Starting in Wuhan, China, followed quickly in the United States in January 2020, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, escalated to a global pandemic by March. Significant disruptions occurred to breast imaging, including deferred screening mammography, triaging diagnostic breast imaging, and changes in breast cancer care algorithms. This article summarizes the effect of the global pandemic-and efforts to curtail its spread-on both breast cancer care and on breast imaging practices including effects on patients, clinical workflow, education, and research.", (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. Mammography screening is proven to significantly decrease breast cancer mortality, with a 40% or more reduction expected with annual use starting at age 40 for women of average risk. However, less than half of all eligible women have a mammogram annually. The elimination of cost sharing for screening made possible by the Affordable Care Act (2010) encouraged screening but mainly for those already insured. The United States Preventive Services Task Force 2009 guidelines recommended against screening those 40 to 49 years old and have left women over 74 years of age vulnerable to coverage loss. Other populations for whom significant gaps in risk information or screening use exist, including women of lower socioeconomic status, black women, men at higher than average risk of breast cancer, and sexual and gender minorities. Further work is needed to achieve higher rates of screening acceptance for all appropriate individuals so that the full mortality and treatment benefits of mammography screening can be realized., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC., Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity., Results: Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I 2  = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I 2  = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I 2  = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I 2  = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I 2  = 44%)., Conclusions: Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.

The article presents a case study of a 47-year-old woman who wants again to undergo screening for breast cancer in 2016 after her digital mammography was negative two years ago. Topics include the appropriate screening approach for the patient, epidemiology of breast cancer in the U.S., and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Objective: The aim of our study is to determine MRI review discrepancy frequency and the subsequent impact on patient management for patients pursuing breast imaging second opinions., Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 1,000 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialty-trained breast radiologists at a dedicated cancer center July 1 through December 31, 2016. Of these, 205 included review of outside breast MRI. Outside imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize breast MRI review discrepancies. These included relevant BI-RADS category changes or identification of additional extent of disease >4 cm. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and incremental cancer detection were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test., Results: Discrepant second opinion breast MRI review was seen in 36 of 205 patients (18%). Additional cancer was detected through image-guided biopsy in 3 of these 36 patients and through excision in 2 (5 of 205, 2%). Additionally, five biopsies yielded high-risk pathologic results without upstage on excision. Findings suspicious for additional extent of disease >4 cm were noted in five patients (2%) treated with mastectomies. Finally, five patients had BI-RADS category downgrades. Ultimately, completion of second opinion MRI review recommendations resulted in altered management in 10% of patients (20 of 205). The absence of prior imaging studies for comparison was associated with increased discrepancy frequency (P = .005)., Conclusion: Second opinion breast MRI review by subspecialized breast imaging radiologists increases cancer detection and results in clinically relevant changes in patient management., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: One in five US women report that they have been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetime. With millions of women presenting for mammography every year, breast imaging centers may represent ideal venues to identify women at risk for IPV and refer them to appropriate support services. Our purpose was to evaluate implementation of a novel IPV screening and referral system for women presenting for mammography., Methods: A question was added to intake questionnaire ("Do you feel safe in your home?") for adult women presenting for screening or diagnostic mammography from 2016 to 2017 at our hospital outpatient breast imaging sites. The proportion of women presenting for screening or diagnostic mammogram who felt unsafe was calculated. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to compare baseline characteristics of women who stated that they felt unsafe at home versus women who did not state that they felt unsafe at home., Results: In all, 99,029 examinations were performed (68,158 unique patients). Of these patients, 71 stated that they felt unsafe at home (71 of 68,158, 0.1%). Women presenting for their first mammogram were more likely to report feeling unsafe at home (odds ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval 1.31-7.06, P = .01). No differences were found in age (P = .148), ethnicity (P = .271), gravida (P = .676), parity (P = .752), age at menarche (P = .775), and history of breast cancer (P = .726)., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of a screening and referral system for IPV in radiology departments., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate whether breast ultrasound (US) is routinely indicated following contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).Materials and Methods: Consecutive screening and diagnostic CESM examinations with concurrent breast US were collected retrospectively (May 2012 to February 2016). Radiologists assigned a separate Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) score for CESM and for US. BIRADS scores were grouped into three categories: normal/benign appearing (BIRADS 1, 2); probably benign, short-term follow-up (BIRADS 3); or suspicious appearing (BIRADS 0, 4, 5). Patients with a suspicious-appearing lesion in either US or CESM underwent biopsy. The associations between malignant pathology with either suspicious-appearing CESM or suspicious-appearing US were calculated. The sensitivities and specificities of CESM and US were analysed.Results: Eighty-seven lesions were biopsied, 37 (43%) biopsies were malignant and 50 (57%) were benign. Although suspicious-appearing CESM was associated with malignant biopsies (p<0.0001), suspicious-appearing US was not (p=0.985). Among 37 malignant biopsies, CESM had a sensitivity of 97% (36/37 lesions), compared to 92% (34/37 lesions) with US. None of the malignant biopsies were normal/benign appearing with CESM. One case of follow-up CESM was suspicious-appearing at US and proved to be malignant on biopsy. The specificity of CESM was 40%, which was significantly higher than US at 8%.Conclusion: When CESM is suspicious appearing, subsequent US and biopsy is appropriate. With a CESM BIRADS 3, correlation with US is suggested. If the CESM is benign appearing, the routine use of US is questionable, as it may lead to unnecessary benign biopsies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening tests are generally not recommended in patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy. Nonetheless, screening mammography still occurs and may lead to follow-up testing., Objective: We assessed the frequency of downstream breast imaging following screening mammography in patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer., Design: Population-based study., Participants: The study included continuously enrolled female fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with advanced colorectal (stage IV) or lung (stage IIIB-IV) cancer reported to a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between 2000 and 2011., Main Measures: We assessed the utilization of diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI following screening mammography. Logistic regression models were used to explore independent predictors of utilization of downstream tests while controlling for cancer type and patient sociodemographic and regional characteristics., Key Results: Among 34,127 women with advanced cancer (23% colorectal; 77% lung cancer; mean age at diagnosis 75 years), 9% (n = 3159) underwent a total of 5750 screening mammograms. Of these, 11% (n = 639) resulted in at least one subsequent diagnostic breast imaging examination within 9 months. Diagnostic mammography was most common (9%; n = 532), followed by ultrasound (6%; n = 334) and MRI (0.2%; n = 14). Diagnostic mammography rates were higher in whites than African Americans (OR, 1.6; p <0.05). Higher ultrasound utilization was associated with more favorable economic status (OR, 1.8; p <0.05)., Conclusions: Among women with advanced colorectal and lung cancer, 9% continued screening mammography, and 11% of these screening studies led to at least one additional downstream test, resulting in costs with little likelihood of meaningful benefit.

Objective: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are being promoted by the Centers of Medicare Services as alternative payment models for radiology reimbursement. Because of its clinical orientation, focus on prevention, standardized reporting, quality orientation through mandatory accreditation, and value demonstration through established outcome metrics, breast imaging offers a unique paradigm for the ACO model in radiology., Conclusion: In radiology, breast imaging represents the paradigm for ACOs.

Purpose: The breast imaging modalities of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI are widely used for screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer. Geographic access to breast imaging services in various modalities is not known at a national level overall or for population subgroups., Methods: A retrospective study of 2004-2008 Medicare claims data was conducted to identify ZIP codes in which breast imaging occurred, and data were mapped. Estimated travel times were made for each modality for 215,798 census block groups in the contiguous United States. Using Census 2010 data, travel times were characterized by sociodemographic factors for 92,788,909 women aged ≥30 years, overall, and by subgroups of age, race/ethnicity, rurality, education, and median income., Results: Overall, 85% of women had travel times of ≤20 minutes to nearest mammography or ultrasound services, and 70% had travel times of ≤20 minutes for MRI with little variation by age. Native American women had median travel times 2-3 times longer for all 3 modalities, compared to women of other racial/ethnic groups. For rural women, median travel times to breast imaging services were 4-8-fold longer than they were for urban women. Black and Asian women had the shortest median travel times to services for all 3 modalities., Conclusions: Travel times to mammography and ultrasound breast imaging facilities are short for most women, but for breast MRI, travel times are notably longer. Native American and rural women are disadvantaged in geographic access based on travel times to breast imaging services. This work informs potential interventions to reduce inequities in access and utilization., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Society of Breast Imaging and the Education Committee of the ACR Breast Commission conducted a survey of breast imaging fellowship programs to determine the status of fellowship curricula, help identify strengths and potential areas for improvement, and assess the current demand for fellowship programs., Methods: In 2012, a two-part survey was emailed to breast imaging fellowship directors from 72 fellowship programs., Results: Of the 66 respondents, a total of 115 positions were identified. There were 90 positions with 9-12 months of breast imaging, and 25 positions with 6 months focused on breast imaging. Approximately two-thirds of programs reported an increase in the number of fellowship applicants, with three-quarters having 3 or more applicants for each position. All programs offered digital mammography, breast MRI, and diagnostic ultrasound services, and nearly all provided experience with interventional procedures. Approximately one-third provided breast screening ultrasound training. More than two-thirds required at least a 1-day rotation with a breast surgeon. Important nonclinical areas of training were not addressed in many programs. Approximately 40% of programs did not offer training related to the practice audit, and one-third of programs did not provide formal training related to quality control., Conclusions: Breast imaging fellowships are currently in higher demand than in the past. Most fellowship programs provide training in the key imaging modalities and interventional procedures. Potential gaps in training for many programs include the practice audit, quality control procedures, breast positioning, and mammography technical factors., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.)