Search

When interpreting mammography, breast radiologists may identify radiopaque densities in the axilla on the mediolateral oblique or lateral projections. When such densities are encountered, true calcifications must be differentiated from pseudocalcifications (artifact). Using imaging, breast radiologists should be able to localize the finding as being dermal, within the soft tissues, within a lymph node, or intramuscular. By combining the anatomic location with the clinical presentation and any other imaging findings, breast radiologists will be able to determine the most appropriate management.

BACKGROUND: Most U.S. states require written notification of breast density after mammograms, yet effects of notifications on knowledge are mixed. Little is known about potential misunderstandings. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed-methods study design to assess women's knowledge about breast density, after receiving a notification. We conducted a telephone survey among a racially/ethnically and health-literacy level diverse sample (N = 754) and qualitative interviews with 61 survey respondents. RESULTS: In survey results, 58% of women correctly indicated that breast density is not related to touch, with higher accuracy among non-Hispanic White women and those with greater health literacy. Next, 87% of women recognized that breast density is identified visually via mammogram, with no significant differences in responses by race/ethnicity or health literacy. Most (81%) women recognized that a relationship exists between breast tissue types and density; Non-Hispanic White women were less likely to respond correctly. Only 47% of women correctly indicated that having dense breasts increases one's risk of breast cancer; women with low health literacy were more often correct. Qualitative results revealed additional dimensions of understanding: Some women incorrectly reported that density could be felt, or dense breasts were lumpier, thicker, or more compacted; others identified “dense” tissue as fatty. Interpretations of risk included that breast density was an early form of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: We found areas of consistent knowledge and identified misperceptions surrounding breast density across race/ethnicity and health literacy levels. Further education to address disparities and correct misunderstandings is essential to promote better knowledge, to foster informed decisions.

This paper will review faculty development focus and programming at the early, mid and late career stages. Topics covered include challenges at each career stage, institutional and national programming currently available for the needs of faculty at that stage, and suggested best practices for development of new career focus and potential programs for each stage.

Whether beginning a new career in breast imaging or switching into a different breast imaging practice for personal or professional advancement, a leadership opportunity, a need to relocate geographically, or simply a better opportunity, it is critical to transition between positions as smoothly as possible. Thoroughly reflecting on your career priorities and goals is essential prior to undertaking any career transition. Once the decision has been made to move to a new position, it is imperative to learn about the dynamics of the new practice and practice environment. Here, we provide suggestions on how to hit the ground running when joining a new breast imaging practice.

Objective The objective was to evaluate outcomes of mammographic architectural distortion (AD) with and without MRI and US correlates. Methods A retrospective review of unexplained mammographic AD with subsequent MRI from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2017 was performed using a reader-based study design. Mammographic, MRI, and US features and outcomes were documented. Truth was based on biopsy results or minimum two-year imaging follow-up. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results Fifty-six cases of AD were included: 29 (51.8%) detected on 2D mammogram and 27 (48.2%) detected on digital breast tomosynthesis. Of 35.7% (20/56) with MRI correlate, 40.0% (8/20) were enhancing masses, 55.0% (11/20) were non-mass enhancement (NME), and 5.0% (1/20) were nonenhancing AD. Of eight enhancing masses, 75.0% (6/8) were invasive cancers, and 25.0% (2/8) were high-risk lesions. Of 11 NME, 18.2% (2/11) were ductal carcinoma in situ, 36.4% (4/11) were high-risk lesions, and 45.4% (5/11) were benign. Of 64.3% (36/56) without MRI correlate, 94.4% (34/36) were benign by pathology or follow-up, one (2.8%, 1/36) was a 4-mm focus of invasive cancer with US correlate, and one (1/36, 2.8%) was a high-risk lesion. Of cases without MRI and US correlates, one (3.0%, 1/33) was a high-risk lesion and 97.0% (32/33) were benign. The negative predictive value of mammographic AD without MRI correlate was 97.2% (35/36) and without both MRI and US correlates was 100.0% (33/33). Conclusion Mammographic AD without MRI or US correlate was not cancer in our small cohort and follow-up could be considered, reducing interventions.

Rationale Three years ago, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced updated Common Program Requirements in recognition of the need to further promote resident and faculty member well-being and patient safety. The ACGME acknowledged residencies would need time to comply with new requirements. This grace period, however, concluded as of July 1, 2019, and programs now risk citations for failure to implement new requirements. Methods and Results The authors, members of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology Common Program Requirements Ad Hoc committee, developed downloadable resources provided in the Appendix delineating the 2019 Common Program Requirements and offering sample resources as compliant solutions. Conclusion The resources offer a national standardized approach to educating trainees in these essential skills and should be especially helpful to programs with access to fewer resources. In addition to achieving compliance, incorporation of these resources into residency training will ensure the next generation of radiologists are equipped to add value while remaining physically and emotionally healthy.

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

This Viewpoint discusses the use of breast density notifications to inform women with dense breast tissue of the potential need for supplemental cancer screening, as well as the need to ensure that such notifications are clear and understandable to women of all language backgrounds, literacy levels, educational levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

To highlight perspectives about differing medical degrees and graduate medical education amongst current allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) radiology residents.Two hundred sixty-eight radiology residents were interviewed using an approved Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR) survey designed to evaluate perceptions of allopathic and osteopathic radiology residents regarding type of medical degree and their career development. The surveys were kept anonymous with no identifiable information. Residents in their first through fourth years of training replied with an approximate equal distribution amongst the different years.Based on the 268 respondents, DOs' more so than MDs', reported that their degree type altered their medical careers (P0.0001) and that they were advised to not pursue a radiology residency based on degree type (P0.0001). In addition, a large majority of both DOs' and MDs' felt that residency selection is favored towards the allopathic degree (P= 0.0451).This survey-based study does reveal perceived differences in the residency recruitment process based on degree type. Future discussions to bridge this perceived gap will be important, especially in light of the recent ACGME merger between the 2 educational pathways.

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.

Various systemic diseases of benign or malignant etiologies can clinically manifest in the breast. Some imaging findings of breast lesions can be pathognomonic for a given condition, while others are non-specific, mimicking primary breast carcinoma and requiring tissue biopsy for definitive diagnosis. In addition to obtaining a detailed clinical history, radiologists should be familiar with the diverse clinical and imaging characteristics of these conditions to help exclude primary breast cancer and avoid unnecessary interventions. This review aims to discuss the clinical presentations, imaging features, pathologic findings, and management of systemic conditions that may affect the breast.

Traditional score-based peer review has come under scrutiny in recent years, as studies have demonstrated it to be generally ineffective at improving quality. Many practices and programs are transitioning to a peer learning model to replace or supplement traditional peer review. Peer learning differs from traditional score-based peer review in that the emphasis is on sharing learning opportunities and creating an environment that fosters discussion of errors in a nonpunitive forum with the goal of improved patient care. Creating a just culture is central to fostering successful peer learning. In a just culture, mistakes can be discussed without shame or fear of retribution and the focus is on systems improvement rather than individual blame. Peer learning, as it pertains to breast imaging, can occur in many forms and venues. Examples of the various formats in which peer learning can occur include through individual colleague interaction, as well as divisional, multidisciplinary, department-wide, and virtual conferences, and with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Incorporating peer learning into the practice of breast imaging aims to reduce delayed diagnoses of breast cancer and optimize patient care.

Rationale and Objectives An increase in the administrative work in our healthcare system has led to an increase in the number of administrative positions in radiology departments. Many of these are Vice Chair roles, including Vice Chair for Education (VCEd). The responsibility of this position has expanded, often far beyond the original definition. This article defines the role and expectations of the Vice Chair for Education and provides suggestions for success. Materials and Methods This article will review 12 vital roles that a Vice Chair for Education must play to be an effective advocate for radiology education within a department. Results Key attributes of an educational leader are delineated, divided into 12 areas or roles. Conclusion This article summarizes key leadership skills needed by Vice Chairs for Education in order for them to be effective in their role.

In the United States, silicone and saline breast implants with their familiar radiologic appearance are the mainstays of breast augmentation. However, less well-known sequelae of unconventional injected materials introduced for cosmetic and noncosmetic purposes may also be encountered on breast imaging—for example, free silicone, paraffin and/or oil, polyacrylamide gel, autologous fat, and hyaluronic acid, which are encountered in the setting of breast augmentation. Breast injection of go-yak is not cosmetic but also results in characteristic imaging findings. Breast changes due to extravasation of chemotherapy or interstitial brachytherapy can mimic the appearance of injected noncosmetic materials. Because many of these materials can mimic or obscure imaging findings of breast cancer, it is important to recognize their varied appearances and the limitations of imaging alone in delineating breast injection material from cancer. Given the relatively uncommon incidence of injected materials into the breast, this article aims to review the imaging appearance in order to aid radiologists in maximizing cancer detection and ensuring optimal patient management.

Purpose The aims of this study were to determine resilience levels of radiology residents at the start of radiology residency, investigate changes in resilience and burnout during residency, and assess the relationship between resilience and burnout among radiology residents. Methods Diagnostic radiology residents were invited to participate in online surveys from 2016 to 2019. Resilience was assessed using the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey. For each data set, genders’ scores were compared using either analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to explore the correlations between resilience and burnout. Results Women and men had no statistically significant difference among baseline resilience scores (P = .78). However, there was a statistically significant overall decrease in resilience scores among women (P = .002). Baseline Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey scores indicated that residents began residency without frequent symptoms of burnout. There was no statistically significant temporal change across subjects among burnout scores in any scale (P ≥ .09 for all) or between women and men (P ≥ .37 for all interactions). However, among women, there was a statistically significant difference in depersonalization scores during training (P = .009). Additionally, higher resilience scores were associated with a greater sense of personal achievement (r = .52) and less emotional exhaustion (r = −.56) and depersonalization (r = −.59). Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that gender differences in resilience and burnout occur during radiology residency and that resilience has a protective effect against experiencing symptoms of burnout. Radiology residency programs should consider building longitudinal resilience for all trainees, especially women.

Objective Understanding whether states’ breast density notifications are associated with desired effects, or disparities, can inform federal policy. We examined self-reported receipt of personal breast density information, breast density discussions with providers, knowledge about density’s masking effect, and association with increased breast cancer risk by state legislation status and women’s sociodemographic characteristics. Methods Cross-sectional observational population-based telephone survey of women aged >40 years who underwent mammography within prior 2 years, had no history of breast cancer, and had heard the term “breast density.” Results Among 2,306 women, 57% received personal breast density information. Multivariate regression models adjusted for covariates indicated that women in notification states were 1.5 times more likely to receive density information, and older Black and Asian women of lower income and lower health literacy were less likely. Overall, only 39% of women discussed density with providers; women in notification states were 1.75 times as likely. Older and Asian women were less likely to have spoken with providers; women with high literacy or prior biopsy were more likely. State legislation status was not associated with differences in density knowledge, but Hispanic women and women of lower income or low health literacy had less knowledge regarding density’s masking effects; older women were more knowledgeable. Hispanic women and women of lower income or low health literacy were more likely, and middle-aged women less likely, to recognize increased breast cancer risk. Discussion Some positive effects were observed, but sociodemographic disparities suggest tailoring of future breast density communications for specific populations of women to ensure equitable understanding.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare radiology trainees' perceptions of the culture regarding speaking up about patient safety and unprofessional behavior in the clinical environment and to assess the likelihood that they will speak up in the presence of a medical hierarchy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included radiology trainees from nine hospitals who attended a communication workshop. Trainees completed questionnaires assessing their perceptions of the support provided by their clinical environment regarding speaking up about patient safety and unprofessional behavior. We also queried their likelihood of speaking up within a team hierarchy about an error presented in a hypothetical clinical vignette. RESULTS. Of 61 participants, 58 (95%) completed questionnaires. Of these 58 participants, 84% felt encouraged by colleagues to speak up about safety concerns, and 57% felt encouraged to speak up about unprofessional behavior (p < .001). Moreover, 17% and 34% thought speaking up about safety concerns and unprofessional behavior, respectively, was difficult (p < .02). Trainees were less likely to agree that speaking up about unprofessional behavior (compared with speaking up about safety concerns) resulted in meaningful change (66% vs 95%; p < .001). In a vignette describing a sterile technique error, respondents were less likely to speak up to an attending radiologist (48%) versus a nurse, intern, or resident (79%, 84%, and 81%, respectively; p < .001). Significant predictors of the likelihood of trainees speaking up to an attending radiologist included perceived potential for patient harm as a result of the error (odds ratio [OR], 6.7; p < .001), perceptions of safety culture in the clinical environment (OR, 5.0; p = .03), and race or ethnicity (OR, 3.1; p = .03). CONCLUSION. Radiology trainees indicate gaps in workplace cultures regarding speaking up, particularly concerning unprofessional behavior and team hierarchy.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and breast tissue density, menstrual status, endocrine therapy, and risk factors for breast cancer and also to evaluate interreader agreement on classification of BPE on CEM. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five subspecialty-trained breast radiologists independently and blindly graded tissue density (with fatty tissue and scattered fibroglandular tissue classified as nondense tissue and with heterogeneously dense and extremely dense classified as dense tissue) and BPE (with minimal or mild BPE categorized as low BPE and moderate or marked BPE categorized as high BPE) on CEM examinations performed from 2014 to 2018. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for information on menstrual status, endocrine therapy, history of breast surgery, and other risk factors for breast cancer. Comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman rank correlation. Interreader agreement was estimated using the Fleiss kappa test. RESULTS. A total of 202 patients (mean [± SD] age, 54 ± 10 years; range, 25-84 years) underwent CEM. Tissue density was categorized as fatty in two patients (1%), scattered fibroglandular in 67 patients (33%), heterogeneously dense in 117 patients (58%), and extremely dense in 16 patients (8%). Among the 202 patients, BPE was minimal in 77 (38%), mild in 80 (40%), moderate in 31 (15%), and marked in 14 (7%). Dense breasts, younger age, premenopausal status, no history of endocrine therapy, and no history of breast cancer were significantly associated with high BPE. Among premenopausal patients, no association was found between BPE and time from last menstrual period to CEM. Overall interreader agreement on BPE was moderate (κ = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.42). Interreader agreement on tissue density was substantial (κ = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.69). CONCLUSION. Women with dense breasts, premenopausal status, and younger age are more likely to have greater BPE. Targeting CEM to the last menstrual period is not indicated.

Context.— Dynamic, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a highly sensitive imaging modality used for screening and diagnostic purposes. Nonmass enhancement (NME) is commonly seen on MRI of the breast. However, the pathologic correlates of NME have not been extensively explored. Consequently, concordance between MRI and pathologic findings in such cases may be uncertain and this uncertainty may cause the need for additional procedures. Objective.— To examine the histologic alterations that correspond to NME on MRI. Design.— We performed a retrospective search for women who underwent breast MRI between March 2014 and December 2016 and identified 130 NME lesions resulting in biopsy. The MRI findings and pathology slides for all cases were reviewed. The follow-up findings on any subsequent excisions were also noted. Results.— Among the 130 cases, the core needle biopsy showed 1 or more benign lesions without atypia in 80 cases (62%), atypical lesions in 21 (16%), ductal carcinoma in situ in 22 (17%), and invasive carcinoma in 7 (5%). Review of the imaging features demonstrated some statistically significant differences in lesions that corresponded to malignant lesions as compared with benign alterations, including homogeneous or clumped internal enhancement, type 3 kinetics, and T2 dark signal; however, there was considerable overlap of features between benign and malignant lesions overall. Of 130 cases, 54 (41.5%) underwent subsequent excision with only 6 cases showing a worse lesion on excision. Conclusions.— This study illustrates that NME can be associated with benign, atypical, and/or malignant pathology and biopsy remains indicated given the overlap of radiologic features.

Conflict in the workplace is inevitable and disruptive to the team dynamic, ultimately leading to suboptimal patient outcomes if not addressed. Especially in breast imaging, where an interprofessional team is commonplace, spending time to address conflict is critical to building and maintaining relationships among team members. Although institutions may adopt a just culture, workplace paradigms can be challenged when two or more team members encounter misunderstandings around work-related or personal issues. Multiple factors can contribute to promoting workplace conflict, including a toxic culture (the antithesis of just culture), ineffective leadership, hierarchy, unclear expectations or goals, pre-existing assumptions and beliefs, lack of effective communication, and low levels of trust. Developing skills to engage in the difficult conversations to address and resolve conflict are essential to create an efficient and effective team to care for patients. In this manuscript, we provide tips on how each of us can build skills in conflict management and resolution, illustrated in several vignettes. These tips provide practical advice, which ultimately will translate into allowing us to provide better patient care every day.

Medical education in the United States has undergone a paradigm shift from passive learning to more interactive student-centered teaching methods. Several digital tools and platforms have been developed to assist educators in creating a high-tech, interactive classroom. However, there are many low-tech ways to engage learners and improve retention by combining collaborative learning techniques and summary exercises. Collaborative learning is an educational approach that involves the coordinated engagement of two or more learners for the purpose of completing a task or solving a problem. Such methods use a student-centered active learning model to promote higher-order cognitive tasks through active engagement in course content. Additionally, summary exercises at the end of a learning activity promote reflection and retention of learned concepts while clarifying content that may have been confusing for the learner. The purpose of this article is to describe the methodology and tips for the implementation of low-tech collaborative learning methods and summary activities into trainee educational activities to create an engaging student-centered learning environment.

Nipple discharge, a relatively common presenting symptom for women of all ages, may be due to both benign and malignant conditions. Men can also present with nipple discharge, and when they do, they have a higher likelihood of malignancy than women. Radiologists vary in their evaluation of patients with nipple discharge, although the American College of Radiology practice guidelines for nipple discharge provides data-driven appropriate algorithms. In patients with physiologic discharge, imaging is not typically indicated. For those with pathologic nipple discharge, imaging typically starts with diagnostic mammography and retroareolar ultrasound for women over 40 years of age, diagnostic mammogram or ultrasound for women aged 30–39 years, and ultrasound for women younger than 30 years. Finally, contrast-enhanced breast MRI or galactography are usually reserved for identifying the cause of discharge when initial imaging with mammography and ultrasound is unrevealing.

ImportanceBreast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Despite the proliferation of mandated written notifications about breast density following mammography, there is little understanding of how women perceive the relative breast cancer risk associated with breast density.ObjectiveTo assess women’s perception of breast density compared with other breast cancer risks and explore their understanding of risk reduction.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis mixed-methods qualitative study used telephone surveys and semistructured interviews to investigate perceptions about breast cancer risk among a nationally representative, population-based sample of women. Eligible study participants were aged 40 to 76 years, reported having recently undergone mammography, had no history of prior breast cancer, and had heard of breast density. Survey participants who had been informed of their personal breast density were invited for a qualitative interview. Survey administration spanned July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, with 2306 women completing the survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to May 30, 2020.Main Outcomes and MeasuresRespondents compared the breast cancer risk associated with breast density with 5 other risk factors. Participants qualitatively described what they thought contributed to breast cancer risk and ways to reduce risk.ResultsOf the 2306 women who completed the survey, 1858 (166 [9%] Asian, 503 [27%] Black, 268 [14%] Hispanic, 792 [43%] White, and 128 [7%] other race or ethnicity; 358 [19%] aged 40-49 years, 906 [49%] aged 50-64 years, and 594 [32%] aged ≥65 years) completed the revised risk perception questions and were included in the analysis. Half of respondents thought breast density to be a greater risk than not having children (957 [52%]), having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day (975 [53%]), or having a prior breast biopsy (867 [48%]). Most respondents felt breast density was a lesser risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer (1706 [93%]) or being overweight or obese (1188 [65%]). Of the 61 women who were interviewed, 6 (10%) described breast density as contributing to breast cancer risk, and 43 (70%) emphasized family history as a breast cancer risk factor. Of the interviewed women, 17 (28%) stated they did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this qualitative study of women of breast cancer screening age, family history was perceived as the primary breast cancer risk factor. Most interviewees did not identify breast density as a risk factor and did not feel confident about actions to mitigate breast cancer risk. Comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of disparate uptake of breast density (BD) information, little is known about diverse women’s preferences for and experiences learning about BD. METHODS: Telephone survey among 2,306 racially/ethnically and literacy diverse women; qualitative interviews with 61 survey respondents. Responses by participant race/ethnicity and literacy were examined using bivariate, then multivariable analyses. Interviews were content-analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Most women (80%) preferred learning of personal BD from providers, with higher rates among Non-Hispanic Black (85%) than Non-Hispanic White women (80%); and among Non-Hispanic White than Asian women (72%, all ps

This Editorial Comment discusses the following AJR article: Multiple Bilateral Circumscribed Masses (MBCM) at Screening Breast Ultrasound (US): Outcomes of New or Enlarging Masses at Follow-up.