Surviving the COVID-19 pandemic: navigating the recovery of breast imaging services in a safety-net hospital.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on county safety-net breast imaging services and describe the steps taken to actively manage and mitigate delays. METHODS: This was an IRB exempt retrospective review of our county safety-net breast imaging practice analyzed for 4 distinct time periods: (1) "Shut-down period": March 17, 2020 to May 17, 2020; (2) "Phased re-opening": May 18, 2020 to June 30, 2020; (3) "Ramp-up": July 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020; and (4) "Current state": October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. These time periods were compared to identical time periods 1 year prior. For "Current state," given that the 1-year prior comparison encompassed the first 3 periods of the pandemic, the identical time period 2 years prior was also compared. RESULTS: Our safety-net practice sustained significant volume losses during the first 3 time periods with a 99% reduction in screening mammography in the shut-down period. Cancers diagnosed decreased by 17% in 2020 (n = 229) compared to 2019 (n = 276). By implementing multiple initiatives that targeted improved access to care, including building community-hospital partnerships and engagement through outreach events and a community education roadshow, we were able to recover and significantly exceed our pandemic screening volumes by 48.1% (27,279 vs 18,419) from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 compared to the identical time period 1 year prior, and exceed our pre-pandemic screening volume by 17.4% (27,279 vs 23,234) compared to the identical time period 2 years prior. CONCLUSION: Through specific community outreach programs and optimized navigation, our safety-net breast imaging practice was able to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on our patient population by increasing patient engagement and breast imaging services.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Recalled Noncalcified Lesions Using Ultrasound Alone Versus Ultrasound Plus Additional Mammographic Views: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. The diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to be equal to that of diagnostic mammography. However, the value of additional mammographic views in diagnostic evaluations remains unclear. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of diagnostic breast ultrasound (US) alone with that of combined US and diagnostic mammography for specific noncalcified recalled abnormalities detected on screening DBT. METHODS. This was a prospective study with a single-arm management strategy. Women recalled for noncalcified lesions on screening DBT underwent initial diagnostic US as part of the study protocol. Additional diagnostic mammography was performed at the discretion of the radiologist. Imaging assessment decisions determined by BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations, biopsy outcomes, and follow-up were recorded using case report forms completed on the day of the diagnostic evaluation and stored in the electronic medical record. RESULTS. From July 10, 2017, to June 6, 2019, a total of 430 recalled noncalcified lesions in 399 women (mean age, 60 ± 12 [SD] years) were included. US alone was performed for 71.2% (306/430) of lesions, whereas US with diagnostic mammography was performed for 28.8% (124/430). Of the recalled lesions, 93.7% (178/190) of masses, 60.0% (51/85) of focal asymmetries, 46.1% (53/115) of asymmetries, 69.2% (9/13) of developing asymmetries, and 55.6% (15/27) of architectural distortions were evaluated with US alone. Of 93 lesions that underwent needle biopsy, 40.9% (38/93) were cancers, all of which were invasive. Thirty-five of 38 (92.1%) cancers were evaluated by US alone, whereas three (7.9%) were evaluated with US and diagnostic mammography. At a median follow-up of 25 months, six cancers were identified (three with US alone and three with US plus diagnostic mammography) in patients with initially benign workup. US alone had two false-negative cancers (one architectural distortion identified at follow-up and one mass biopsied stereotactically at initial detection). CONCLUSION. US alone is effective in the diagnostic evaluation of noncalcified masses recalled on screening tomosynthesis. For asymmetries, diagnostic mammography may be best without the need for additional US, whereas architectural distortions still warrant diagnostic mammography and US. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiologists should consider performing US first for DBT-recalled noncalcified masses. Omitting diagnostic mammography when US is negative has a low false-negative rate.

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography: Technique, Clinical Applications, and Pitfalls.

OBJECTIVE. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) combines the high spatial resolution of mammography with the improved enhancement provided by contrast medium. In this article, CEDM technique-the current and potential clinical applications and current challenges-will be reviewed. CONCLUSION. CEDM is a promising technique in the supplemental evaluation of patients with mammographically inconclusive findings and potentially in the screening of women with mammographically dense breasts. CEDM is emerging as a cost-effective alternative to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to stage newly diagnosed breast cancer and evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Health Care Disparities in Breast Cancer: The Economics of Access to Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

The widespread acceptance of screening mammography for early detection, along with advances in treatment, have combined to decrease the overall mortality rate from breast cancer. However, significant disparities in health outcomes persist. Socioeconomic factors, including the ability to obtain private insurance, income, education, disparities in the quality of healthcare delivery, and race, as well as the ability to access and complete the most advanced breast cancer treatments, form part of a complex constellation of factors that contribute to disparity in breast cancer mortality. Here, we review some of the factors influencing this disparity and discuss some of the methods that have been suggested for closing the gap in breast cancer outcomes, using our perspective as breast imaging physicians serving both a safety-net hospital and tertiary healthcare system.

Multimodality Imaging-based Evaluation of Single-Lumen Silicone Breast Implants for Rupture.

Breast implants are frequently encountered on breast imaging studies, and it is essential for any radiologist interpreting these studies to be able to correctly assess implant integrity. Ruptures of silicone gel-filled implants often occur without becoming clinically obvious and are incidentally detected at imaging. Early diagnosis of implant rupture is important because surgical removal of extracapsular silicone in the breast parenchyma and lymphatics is difficult. Conversely, misdiagnosis of rupture may prompt a patient to undergo unnecessary additional surgery to remove the implant. Mammography is the most common breast imaging examination performed and can readily depict extracapsular free silicone, although it is insensitive for detection of intracapsular implant rupture. Ultrasonography (US) can be used to assess the internal structure of the implant and may provide an economical method for initial implant assessment. Common US signs of intracapsular rupture include the "keyhole" or "noose" sign, subcapsular line sign, and "stepladder" sign; extracapsular silicone has a distinctive "snowstorm" or echogenic noise appearance. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most accurate and reliable means for assessment of implant rupture and is highly sensitive for detection of both intracapsular and extracapsular rupture. MR imaging findings of intracapsular rupture include the keyhole or noose sign, subcapsular line sign, and "linguine" sign, and silicone-selective MR imaging sequences are highly sensitive to small amounts of extracapsular silicone. ©RSNA, 2017.

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

CONTEXT: Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS: A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION: The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.

PURPOSE: To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants. RESULTS: Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons. CONCLUSION: Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS: Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinoma at surgical excision.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to better define the rate and variables associated with cancer underestimation when lobular neoplasia is found at minimally invasive breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 32,420 patients who underwent imaging-guided needle biopsy of the breast for mammographic or sonographic abnormalities from 1988 to 2000 were retrospectively reviewed. The 278 cases in which lobular neoplasia was the highest-risk lesion at biopsy were included. Of the 278 cases, 164 proceeded to surgical excision, allowing calculation of rates of underestimation from minimally invasive biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 32,420 minimally invasive breast biopsies, lobular neoplasia was found in 278 (0.9%). One hundred sixty-four of the 278 (59%) continued to surgical excision, where cancer was pathologically confirmed in 38 (23%). No difference was seen in the underestimation rates for lesions diagnosed as lobular carcinoma in situ (25%, 17 of 67 lesions) versus atypical lobular hyperplasia (22%, 21 of 97 lesions). Statistically significant underestimation of carcinoma was found with biopsy of masses (with or without associated microcalcifications) rather than calcifications only, a higher BI-RADS category (p < 0.0001), use of a core biopsy device rather than a vacuum device (p < 0.01), and obtaining fewer specimens (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Significant sampling error occurs regardless of the type of core biopsy device, number of specimens obtained, histologic-radiographic concordance, mammographic appearance, and complete excision of the lesion as determined by imaging. For this reason, all patients with lobular neoplasia at core or vacuum-assisted biopsy should undergo surgical excision until further differentiating criteria can be determined.

American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

In 2003, the American Cancer Society updated its guidelines for early detection of breast cancer based on recommendations from a formal review of evidence and a recent workshop. The new screening recommendations address screening mammography, physical examination, screening older women and women with comorbid conditions, screening women at high risk, and new screening technologies.

Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary?

OBJECTIVE: . This study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of cases of radial scar diagnosed by percutaneous core needle biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 198 nonpalpable lesions diagnosed with radial scars found at core needle biopsy, 157 lesions constituting the study group had undergone surgical excision (n = 102) or mammographic surveillance after biopsy for at least 24 months (median, 38 months; n = 55). Mammographic lesion type, lesion size, biopsy guidance method, biopsy device, number of specimens per lesion, and presence of atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy were retrospectively analyzed. Results were compared with histologic findings at surgery or mammographic findings during surveillance. RESULTS: . Carcinoma was found at excision in 28% (8/29) of lesions with associated atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy and 4% (5/128) of lesions without associated atypia (p < 0.0001). In the latter group, carcinoma was found at excision in 3% (2/60) of masses, 8% (3/40) of architectural distortions, and 0% (0/28) of microcalcification lesions. Malignancy was missed in 9% (5/58) of lesions biopsied with a spring-loaded device and in 0% (0/70) of lesions biopsied with a directional vacuum-assisted device (p = 0.01); and in 8% (5/60) of lesions sampled with less than 12 specimens per lesion and 0% (0/68) sampled with 12 or more specimens (p = 0.015). Lesion type, maximal lesion diameter, and type of imaging guidance (stereotactic or sonographic) were not significant factors in determining the presence of malignancy. CONCLUSION: . Diagnosis of radial scar based on core needle biopsy is likely to be reliable when there is no associated atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy, when the biopsy includes at least 12 specimens, and when mammographic findings are reconciled with histologic findings. When the lesion diagnosed by core needle biopsy as radial scar does not meet these criteria, excisional biopsy is indicated.

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic characteristics and computer-aided detection.

PURPOSE: To characterize the mammographic appearance of invasive lobular carcinoma in a large series of screening-detected consecutive breast cancers and to evaluate the ability of a computer-aided detection system to mark these carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigators used the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon to characterize lesions as part of a retrospective review of 90 screening mammographic examinations that led to biopsy-proved diagnosis of 94 invasive lobular carcinoma lesions. The 40 available prior mammographic examinations (obtained 9-24 months earlier) were also reviewed to characterize any visible findings. The results of a computer-aided detection analysis were compared with the images, and the sensitivity of the algorithm was calculated for correct detection of the lesions. RESULTS: Fifty-six (60%) of 94 lesions manifested as masses, of which 40 (71%) were described as irregular and spiculated; 20 (21%) of 94, as architectural distortions; and the remainder, 18 (20%), as either asymmetric densities or calcifications. On the screening mammograms showing biopsy-proved cancers, the sensitivity of the computer-aided detection system was 86 (91%) of 94 lesions. Thirty-one of the 40 prior mammograms showed retrospectively visible findings, and 24 (77%) of 31 were marked by the computer-aided detection system. CONCLUSION: Spiculated masses and architectural distortions are the predominant appearances of invasive lobular carcinoma, and a computer-aided detection system correctly marked a high percentage of invasive lobular carcinoma lesions.