Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.

PURPOSE: To determine improvement in breast cancer detection by using supplemental three-dimensional (3D) automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) with screening mammography versus screening mammography alone in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. The SomoInsight Study was an observational, multicenter study conducted between 2009 and 2011. A total of 15 318 women (mean age, 53.3 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; range, 25-94 years) presenting for screening mammography alone with heterogeneously (50%-75%) or extremely (>75%) dense breasts were included, regardless of further risk characterization, and were followed up for 1 year. Participants underwent screening mammography alone followed by an AB US examination; results were interpreted sequentially. McNemar test was used to assess differences in cancer detection. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed at screening in 112 women: 82 with screening mammography and an additional 30 with AB US. Addition of AB US to screening mammography yielded an additional 1.9 detected cancers per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.7; P < .001). Of cancers detected with screening mammography, 62.2% (51 of 82) were invasive versus 93.3% (28 of 30) of additional cancers detected with AB US (P = .001). Of the 82 cancers detected with either screening mammography alone or the combined read, 17 were detected with screening mammography alone. Of these, 64.7% (11 of 17) were ductal carcinoma in situ versus 6.7% (two of 30) of cancers detected with AB US alone. Sensitivity for the combined read increased by 26.7% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.1%); the increase in the recall rate per 1000 women screened was 284.9 (95% CI: 278.0, 292.2; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dense breasts increased the cancer detection yield of clinically important cancers, but it also increased the number of false-positive results.

Teaching ultrasound professionalism.

Professionalism is part of the milestone program instituted by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Radiology. A unique feature of ultrasound professionalism is the relationship between the radiologist and the sonographer. Because this relationship is important for sonographic quality and ultimately patient outcome, residents should be trained to achieve an optimal professional relationship with sonographers. This article describes milestones for ultrasound professionalism and suggests methods of implementation.

A quality improvement initiative to reduce unnecessary follow-up imaging for adnexal lesions.

Our objective was to improve the quality of pelvic ultrasound reports and decrease the number of physiologic and benign adnexal lesions unnecessarily referred for follow-up. We performed a prospective cohort study of 2 quality improvement interventions: academic detailing with education for the ultrasound radiologists and sonographers, and implementation of a national consensus guideline on adnexal cysts. Our primary quality outcome measure was the proportion of pelvic ultrasound exams in which follow-up was recommended for an adnexal lesion. Baseline data collection in January 2006 identified 252 pelvic ultrasound exams, of which 58 (23%) reported an adnexal lesion and 31 (12%) recommended follow-up. Retrospective review revealed that 17 of 31 (55%) reported adnexal lesions with follow-up recommended were physiologic or benign. After intervention 1, 59 of 214 (28%) pelvic ultrasound exams from January 2008 reported an adnexal lesion, with 18 (8%) recommending follow-up. After intervention 2, 64 of 296 (22%) pelvic ultrasound exams from January 2011 reported an adnexal lesion, with 16 (5%) recommending follow-up. Follow-up recommendations decreased 58% (12% versus 5%, P = .004), with significant increase in the proportion characterized as physiologic or benign (P = .001). Through a quality initiative aimed at appropriate description and follow-up recommendations for adnexal cystic lesions identified at ultrasound, we effectively reduced unnecessary imaging referrals. We conclude that: (1) acceptance of an expert consensus guideline was important to add credibility, (2) accessible image-rich charts are invaluable tools at point of use, and (3) elimination of some unnecessary imaging is under the control of the radiologist.

Systematic approach to difficult problems in breast sonography.

Although there is an increasing use of more imaging modalities in breast imaging, the role of breast sonography has not diminished--in fact, the applications of sonography have increased with the improvement of high-frequency equipment. Compared with other breast imaging modalities, current sonographic equipment has excellent spatial resolution and outstanding image contrast. Furthermore, sonography does not have the disadvantages of other modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging including exposure to intravenous contrast, higher expense, patient claustrophobia, and potential adverse contrast reaction or renal damage. The primary disadvantage of sonography is that this technique is highly operator dependent, particularly in the breast. However, if one can overcome the barrier of operator dependence, then one potentially may reduce the cost of diagnosis of breast cancers. Although many articles review sonographic appearances of solid neoplastic breast masses, relatively little attention has been directed toward subtle or confusing clinical and sonographic findings of breast cancer. This review defines methods to sonographically approach identifying vague mammographic and subtle magnetic resonance imaging lesions. Furthermore, because sonography is operator dependent, this article also involves discussing some of the pitfalls of breast sonography and how to avoid them.

Sonographic assessment of breast calcifications.

With widespread use of high-frequency sonography, breast imagers are beginning to commonly identify sonographic calcifications. The sonographic approach in assessing breast calcifications depends on whether the calcifications are initially identified sonographically or mammographically. If the calcifications are initially identified sonographically, a breast imager should first consider if the calcifications fit the characteristics of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 2--benign. If the calcifications are not benign, then one should assess the calcifications by their mammographic appearance. If the calcifications are initially identified mammographically, then the sonologist should be aware that one may not always visualize mammographic calcifications with sonography. Instead, if the radiologist seeks to localize mammographic calcifications with sonography, the imager should search for sonographic findings of invasive malignancy or ductal carcinoma in situ. These abnormalities include hypoechoic solid mass, focally dilated ducts, intraductal mass, or, rarely, isolated clustered calcifications.