Breast Biopsy Recommendations and Breast Cancers Diagnosed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reduced mammography use, potentially delaying breast cancer diagnoses. Purpose To examine breast biopsy recommendations and breast cancers diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by mode of detection (screen detected vs symptomatic) and women's characteristics. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of prospectively collected data, monthly breast biopsy recommendations after mammography, US, or both with subsequent biopsy performed were examined from 66 facilities of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between January 2019 and September 2020. The number of monthly and cumulative biopsies recommended and performed and the number of subsequent cancers diagnosed during the pandemic period (March 2020 to September 2020) were compared with data from the prepandemic period using Wald χ2 tests. Analyses were stratified by mode of detection and race or ethnicity. Results From January 2019 to September 2020, 17 728 biopsies were recommended and performed, with 6009 cancers diagnosed. From March to September 2020, there were substantially fewer breast biopsy recommendations with cancer diagnoses when compared with the same period in 2019 (1650 recommendations in 2020 vs 2171 recommendations in 2019 [24% fewer], P < .001), predominantly due to fewer screen-detected cancers (722 cancers in 2020 vs 1169 cancers in 2019 [38% fewer], P < .001) versus symptomatic cancers (895 cancers in 2020 vs 965 cancers in 2019 [7% fewer], P = .27). The decrease in cancer diagnoses was largest in Asian (67 diagnoses in 2020 vs 142 diagnoses in 2019 [53% fewer], P = .06) and Hispanic (82 diagnoses in 2020 vs 145 diagnoses in 2019 [43% fewer], P = .13) women, followed by Black women (210 diagnoses in 2020 vs 287 diagnoses in 2019 [27% fewer], P = .21). The decrease was smallest in non-Hispanic White women (1128 diagnoses in 2020 vs 1357 diagnoses in 2019 [17% fewer], P = .09). Conclusion There were substantially fewer breast biopsies with cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to September 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, with Asian and Hispanic women experiencing the largest declines, followed by Black women. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Heller in this issue.

Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND. The need for second visits between screening mammography and diagnostic imaging contributes to disparities in the time to breast cancer diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an immediate-read screening mammography program was implemented to reduce patient visits and decrease time to diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of an immediate-read screening program with focus on disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal findings are made at screening mammography. METHODS. In May 2020, an immediate-read screening program was implemented whereby a dedicated breast imaging radiologist interpreted all screening mammograms in real time; patients received results before discharge; and efforts were made to perform any recommended diagnostic imaging during the visit (performed by different radiologists). Screening mammographic examinations performed from June 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 (preimplementation period), and from June 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (postimplementation period), were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics were recorded from the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating patient age, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type were estimated to identify factors associated with same-day diagnostic imaging. Screening metrics were compared between periods. RESULTS. A total of 8222 preimplementation and 7235 postimplementation screening examinations were included; 521 patients had abnormal screening findings before implementation, and 359 after implementation. Before implementation, 14.8% of patients underwent same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. This percentage increased to 60.7% after implementation. Before implementation, patients who identified their race as other than White had significantly lower odds than patients who identified their race as White of undergoing same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal screening results (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86; p = .03). After implementation, the odds of same-day diagnostic imaging were not significantly different between patients of other races and White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.71; p = .80). After implementation, there was no significant difference in race and ethnicity between patients who underwent and those who did not undergo same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal results of screening mammography (p > .05). The rate of abnormal interpretation was significantly lower after than it was before implementation (5.0% vs 6.3%; p < .001). Cancer detection rate and PPV1 (PPV based on positive findings at screening examination) were not significantly different before and after implementation (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Implementation of the immediate-read screening mammography program reduced prior racial and ethnic disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. CLINICAL IMPACT. An immediate-read screening program provides a new paradigm for improved screening mammography workflow that allows more rapid diagnostic workup with reduced disparities in care.

Adenomyoepithelioma of the breast: a rare diagnosis complicated by surgical emergency and diagnostic uncertainty.

A woman in her 80s was referred as an emergency case with a large oedematous and ulcerating lesion of the right breast. There was a 5-month history of increasing breast volume with new onset skin breakdown and discharge. Imaging revealed an extensive heterogeneous mass requiring drainage. No diagnosis was received from multiple biopsies and immediate surgical resection of the breast and axillary sampling was prioritised given the deteriorating patient condition. Postoperative histology identified a biphasic Adenomyoepithelioma of low malignant potential, a rare presentation compounding the complexity of management. The diagnostic uncertainty of this case highlighted the importance of MDT collaboration and the flexibility of current management pathways when dealing with cases requiring urgent surgical intervention. Axillary sampling in the context of unsuccessful preoperative biopsy represented a comprehensive means for assessing the need for further surgical or systemic management in the context of unconfirmed malignancy in a deteriorating patient.

The management of a breast unit during the COVID-19 emergency: a local experience.

Introduction: Since breast imaging requires very close contact with patients, a protocol is needed to perform safe daily screening activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: Patients were triaged and separated into three different clinical scenarios by performing a telephone questionnaire before each diagnostic exam or a nasopharyngeal swab before every recovery. Specific procedures for each scenario are described. Results: From July to October 2020, 994 exams were performed. A total of 16 cancers and 7 suspected COVID-19 patients were identified. No medical staff were infected. Conclusion: This protocol is an example of the practical use of guidelines applied to a breast unit to assist specialists in preventing COVID-19 infection and optimizing resources for breast cancer diagnosis.

Lay abstract On March 11th, 2020, the WHO officially declared the COVID-19 infection pandemic. Since breast cancer represents the most frequent cancer in women of all ages, and breast imaging examinations require very close contact with patients, a protocol was designed to optimize the management of patients and healthcare workers, performing strict COVID-19 screening and avoiding any impairment of survival of patients with breast cancer. Patients were separated into three different clinical scenarios (non-COVID-19 patients, suspected COVID-19 patients and confirmed COVID-19 patients) by performing a telephone questionnaire before each diagnostic exam or a nasopharyngeal swab before every recovery. Specific procedures for each scenario are described. Confirmed or suspected patients are rescheduled if not urgent. From July to October 2020, 994 exams were performed. A total of 16 cancers and 7 suspected COVID-19 patients were identified. No medical staff were infected. This study demonstrates efficacy in terms of continuity in the provision of an essential level of care in a breast cancer screening and ambulatory setting, providing an example of the practical use of guidelines applied to a breast unit, to assist specialists in preventing COVID-19 infection and optimizing resources for breast cancer diagnosis.

The PROCEM study protocol: Added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions - a prospective randomized multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Correct preoperative estimation of the malignant extent is crucial for optimal planning of breast cancer surgery. The sensitivity of mammography is lower in dense breasts, and additional imaging techniques are sometimes warranted. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown similar sensitivity and in some cases better specificity, than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small, observational studies. CEM may be more cost-effective than MRI, and may provide better identification of the tumor extent, however, no randomized trials have been performed to date to investigate the added value of CEM. In a feasibility study, we found that the treatment was changed in 10/47 (21%) cases after additional CEM. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer in a randomized study. METHOD: This prospective randomized study will include 440 patients with strongly suspected or established diagnosis of breast malignancy, based on assessment with mammography, ultrasound and core biopsy/cytology, and for whom primary surgery is planned. Patients will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based randomization tool to additional investigation with CEM or no further imaging. The CEM findings will be taken into consideration, which may lead to changes in primary treatment, which is the primary endpoint of this study. Secondary endpoints include rate of reoperation and number of avoidable mastectomies, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of additional CEM. Patient-reported health-related quality of life will be investigated at 1 year with the validated Breast-Q™ questionnaire. The rate of local recurrence or new cancer ipsi- or contralaterally within 5 years will be assessed from medical records and pathology reports. DISCUSSION: The aim of this trial is to explore the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer. The results obtained from this study will contribute to our knowledge on CEM as an additional imaging method to standard investigation with digital mammography and ultrasound. The findings may also provide additional information on which patient groups would benefit from CEM, and on the economic aspects of CEM in standard preoperative practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov , registration no: NCT04437602 , date of registration: June 18, 2020.

Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Assessment of a woman's risk of breast cancer is essential when moving towards personalized screening. Breast density is a well-known risk factor and has the potential to improve accuracy of risk prediction models. In this study we reviewed the impact on model performance of adding breast density to clinical breast cancer risk prediction models. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using a pre-specified search strategy for PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from January 2007 until November 2019. Studies were screened using the Covidence software. Eligible studies developed or modified existing breast cancer risk prediction models applicable to the general population of women by adding breast density to the model. Improvement in discriminatory accuracy was measured as an increase in the Area Under the Curve or concordance statistics. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies were identified by the search and one by reference check. Four studies modified the Gail model, four modified the Tyrer-Cuzick model, and five studies developed new models. Several methods were used to measure breast density, including visual, semi- and fully automated methods. Eleven studies reported discriminatory accuracy and one study reported calibration. Seven studies found a statistically significantly increased discriminatory accuracy when including density in the model. The increase in AUC ranged 0.03 to 0.14. Four studies did not report on statistical significance, but reported an increased AUC ranging from 0.01 to 0.06. CONCLUSION: Including mammographic breast density has the potential to improve breast cancer risk prediction models. However, all models demonstrated limited discrimination accuracy.

Unusual Presentation of a Post-procedural Breast Hematoma: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Hematoma is the most frequent complication after Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy (VABB) in 13% of cases. A direct communication channel with patients eases the diagnosis of VABB complications and ensures treatment at an early stage, as outpatients, in most cases. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a reduction of self-reported postoperative complication leading to delay in the identification of harmful complications, therefore leading to need for more invasive treatment. CASE REPORT: A 50-year-old patient was admitted to the Emergency Department for dry cough, fever, chest discomfort, dyspnea, and slight confusion four days after VABB. Due to the reported symptoms, the patient was sent to our COVID-19 Emergency Department. The COVID-19 swab was negative. Ultrasound revealed a large hematoma at the biopsy site, with active bleeding. Open evacuation with accurate hemostasis was planned with rapid and complete resolution of the clinical symptoms. After surgery, the patient reported that she intentionally avoided admittance in the hospital due to the risk of COVID-19 infection. The patient was discharged in the first postoperative day and maintained in quarantine for 14 days. CONCLUSION: In the COVID-19 era due to the risk of hospital cross-infections, reduction of patient-doctor communication could lead to misdiagnosis, delay in recognition of procedural complications thus leading to requirement for invasive treatment, hospitalization, while also further multiplying the risk of COVID-19 infection.

Mammographic and sonographic findings in the breast and axillary tail following a COVID-19 vaccine.

Axillary lymphadenopathy on breast imaging after recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has been reported in the literature as immunization has become more widespread. While muscle edema at the injection site has been observed on MRI secondary to an immune response, ipsilateral breast imaging observations of edema have not been reported to be seen with the COVID-19 vaccinations to date. Mammographic findings such as trabecular and skin thickening, along with increased echogenicity on ultrasound, can be seen with edema secondary to capillary leak or poor lymphatic drainage, and should be considered as a possible etiology for the observed breast edema following a recent COVID-19 vaccine. Inflammatory changes observed in the breast and axillary tail post vaccination described in this case series are transient, but clinically relevant for patients who experience swelling following injection. Similar to evaluations for suspected mastitis, a short interval imaging follow up to confirm resolution may be appropriate for patients with ipsilateral vaccination histories, and could potentially reduce the number of false positive examinations in this clinical scenario. However, inflammatory breast cancer can mimic inflammation and infection, therefore close follow up to resolution is critical as to not miss cancer.

Mitigating the Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccinations on Patients Undergoing Breast Imaging Examinations: A Pragmatic Approach.

Reports of patients with axillary adenopathy identified on breast imaging after coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination are rising. We propose a pragmatic management approach based on clinical presentation, vaccination delivery, and imaging findings. In the settings of screening mammography, screening MRI, and diagnostic imaging workup of breast symptoms, with no imaging findings beyond unilateral axillary adenopathy ipsilateral to recent (within the past 6 weeks) vaccination, we report the adenopathy as benign with no further imaging indicated if no nodes are palpable 6 weeks after the last dose. For patients with palpable axillary adenopathy in the setting of ipsilateral recent vaccination, clinical follow-up of the axilla is recommended. In all these scenarios, axillary ultrasound is recommended if clinical concern persists 6 weeks after vaccination. In patients with a recent breast cancer diagnosis in the pre- or peritreatment setting, prompt recommended imaging is encouraged as well as vaccination (in the thigh or contralateral arm). Our recommendations align with the ACR BI-RADS Atlas and aim to reduce patient anxiety, provider burden, and costs of unnecessary evaluation of enlarged nodes in the setting of recent vaccinations and, also, to avoid further delays in vaccinations and breast cancer screening during the pandemic.

Updates on Lobular Neoplasms and Papillary, Adenomyoepithelial, and Fibroepithelial Lesions of the Breast.

CONTEXT.­: This review article is a result of the breast pathology lectures given at the Sixth Chinese American Pathologists Association annual diagnostic pathology course in October 2020 (held virtually due to COVID-19). OBJECTIVE.­: To update recent developments, in this review article, the authors wrote minireviews in the following 4 areas: lobular neoplasm, adenomyoepithelial lesions, papillary lesions, and fibroepithelial lesions. DATA SOURCES.­: The sources include extensive literature review, personal research, and experience. CONCLUSIONS.­: With the wide practice of screening mammography, these lesions are not uncommon in image-guided core biopsies and excisional specimens. Many recent developments have emerged in understanding these lesions. We aim to provide readers with concise updates for each of these lesions with a focus on recent updates in definitions, diagnostic criteria, management, and molecular profiles that are most relevant to the daily practice of pathology and patient management.

COVID-19 Vaccination Induced Lymphadenopathy in a Specialized Breast Imaging Clinic in Israel: Analysis of 163 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Following vaccination of Israeli population with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, an unusual increase in axillary-lymphadenopathy was noted. This study assesses the rate and magnitude of this trend from breast-imaging standpoint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants undergoing breast-imaging, in whom isolated axillary-lymphadenopathy was detected were questioned regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to the ipsilateral arm. Patients' and imaging characteristics were statistically compared. In order to perform a very short-term follow-up, twelve healthy vaccinated medical staff-members, underwent axillary-ultrasound shortly after the second dose, and follow-up. RESULTS: Axillary-lymphadenopathy attributed to vaccination was found in 163 women undergoing breast-imaging, including BRCA-carriers. During the study, number of detected lymphadenopathies increased by 394% (p = 0.00001) in comparison with previous 2 consecutive years. Mean cortical-thickness of abnormal lymph-nodes after second dose vaccination was 5 ± 2 mm. Longer lymph-node diameter after second vaccination was noted (from 15 ± 5 mm, to 18 ± 6 mm, p = 0.005). In the subgroup of medical staff members, following trends were observed: in patients with positive antibodies, lymph-node cortical-thickness was larger than patients with negative serology (p = 0.03); lymph-node cortical-thickness decreased in 4-5 weeks follow-up (p = 0.007). Lymphadenopathy was evident on mammography in only 49% of cases. DISCUSSION: Vaccine-associated lymphadenopathy is an important phenomenon with great impact on breast-imaging clinic workload. Results suggest the appearance of cortical thickening shortly after both doses. Positive serology is associated with increased lymph-node cortical-thickness. In asymptomatic vaccinated women with ipsilateral axillary-lymphadenopathy as the only abnormal finding, radiological follow-up is probably not indicated. BRCA-carriers, although at higher risk for breast-cancer, should probably receive the same management as average-risk patients.

Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity.

Importance: Breast cancer screening, surveillance, and diagnostic imaging services were profoundly limited during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To develop a risk-based strategy for triaging mammograms during periods of decreased capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data collected prospectively from mammography examinations performed in 2014 to 2019 at 92 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants included individuals undergoing mammography. Data were analyzed from August 10 to November 3, 2020. Exposures: Clinical indication for screening, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, age, time since last mammogram/screening interval, family history of breast cancer, breast density, and history of high-risk breast lesion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Combinations of clinical indication, clinical history, and breast cancer risk factors that subdivided mammograms into risk groups according to their cancer detection rate were identified using classification and regression trees. Results: The cohort included 898 415 individuals contributing 1 878 924 mammograms (mean [SD] age at mammogram, 58.6 [11.2] years) interpreted by 448 radiologists, with 1 722 820 mammograms in individuals without a personal history of breast cancer and 156 104 mammograms in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Most individuals were aged 50 to 69 years at imaging (1 113 174 mammograms [59.2%]), and 204 305 (11.2%) were Black, 206 087 (11.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 126 677 (7.0%) were Hispanic or Latina, and 40 021 (2.2%) were another race/ethnicity or mixed race/ethnicity. Cancer detection rates varied widely based on clinical indication, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, and age. The 12% of mammograms with very high (89.6 [95% CI, 82.3-97.5] to 122.3 [95% CI, 108.1-138.0] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) or high (36.1 [95% CI, 33.1-39.3] to 47.5 [95% CI, 42.4-53.3] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) cancer detection rates accounted for 55% of all detected cancers and included mammograms to evaluate an abnormal mammogram or breast lump in individuals of all ages regardless of breast cancer history, to evaluate breast symptoms other than lump in individuals with a breast cancer history or without a history but aged 60 years or older, and for short-interval follow-up in individuals aged 60 years or older without a breast cancer history. The 44.2% of mammograms with very low cancer detection rates accounted for 13.1% of detected cancers and included annual screening mammograms in individuals aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 [95% CI, 3.5-4.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) and all screening mammograms in individuals younger than 50 years regardless of screening interval (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, clinical indication and individual risk factors were associated with cancer detection and may be useful for prioritizing mammography in times and settings of decreased capacity.

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on the Attitudes and Practice of Italian Oncologists Toward Breast Cancer Care and Related Research Activities.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists toward breast cancer care and related research activities. METHODS: A 29-question anonymous online survey was sent by e-mail to members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. Only medical oncologists (both those in training and specialists) were invited to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 165 responding oncologists, 121 (73.3.%) worked in breast units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted weekly paclitaxel (68.5% v 93.9%) and a dose-dense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% v 58.8%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the metastatic setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% v 53.9%) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less-aggressive characteristics (55.8% v 80.0%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. A significant change was also observed in delaying the timing for monitoring therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, assessing treatment response with imaging tests, and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously implicated in these activities, respectively. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists face many challenges in providing cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. Although most of the changes in their attitudes and practice were reasonable responses to the current health care emergency without expected major negative impact on patient outcomes, some potentially alarming signals of undertreatment were observed.

Resuming Breast Imaging Services in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Safety and Beyond.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic begins to stabilize, different medical imaging facilities not directly involved in the COVID-19 epidemic face the dilemma of how to return to regular operation. We hereby discuss various fields of concern in resuming breast imaging services. We examine the concerns for resuming functions of breast imaging services in 2 broad categories, including safety aspects of operating a breast clinic and addressing potential modifications needed in managing common clinical scenarios in the COVID-19 aftermath. Using a stepwise approach in harmony with the relative states of the epidemic, health care system capacity, and the current state of performing breast surgeries (and in compliance with the recommended surgical guidelines) can ensure avoiding pointless procedures and ensure a smooth transition to a fully operational breast imaging facility.