Patient Characteristics Impact Performance of AI Algorithm in Interpreting Negative Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Studies.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to manage radiologists' workloads. The impact of patient characteristics on AI performance has not been well studied. Purpose To understand the impact of patient characteristics (race and ethnicity, age, and breast density) on the performance of an AI algorithm interpreting negative screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study identified negative screening DBT examinations from an academic institution from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. All examinations had 2 years of follow-up without a diagnosis of atypia or breast malignancy and were therefore considered true negatives. A subset of unique patients was randomly selected to provide a broad distribution of race and ethnicity. DBT studies in this final cohort were interpreted by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm, which generated case scores (malignancy certainty) and risk scores (1-year subsequent malignancy risk) for each mammogram. Positive examinations were classified based on vendor-provided thresholds for both scores. Multivariable logistic regression was used to understand relationships between the scores and patient characteristics. Results A total of 4855 patients (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-63 years]) were included: 27% (1316 of 4855) White, 26% (1261 of 4855) Black, 28% (1351 of 4855) Asian, and 19% (927 of 4855) Hispanic patients. False-positive case scores were significantly more likely in Black patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.2, 1.8]) and less likely in Asian patients (OR = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.9]) compared with White patients, and more likely in older patients (71-80 years; OR = 1.9 [95% CI: 1.5, 2.5]) and less likely in younger patients (41-50 years; OR = 0.6 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.7]) compared with patients aged 51-60 years. False-positive risk scores were more likely in Black patients (OR = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.0]), patients aged 61-70 years (OR = 3.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 5.1]), and patients with extremely dense breasts (OR = 2.8 [95% CI: 1.3, 5.8]) compared with White patients, patients aged 51-60 years, and patients with fatty density breasts, respectively. Conclusion Patient characteristics influenced the case and risk scores of a Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm analyzing negative screening DBT examinations. © RSNA, 2024.

Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?

OBJECTIVE: To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001). CONCLUSION: The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation of Nonmass Enhancement Contiguous with Malignant Index Breast Cancer Masses at Preoperative Breast MRI.

Purpose To determine the pathologic features of nonmass enhancement (NME) directly adjacent to biopsy-proven malignant masses (index masses) at preoperative MRI and determine imaging characteristics that are associated with a malignant pathologic condition. Materials and Methods This retrospective study involved the review of breast MRI and mammography examinations performed for evaluating disease extent in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer from July 1, 2016, to September 30, 2019. Inclusion criteria were limited to patients with an index mass and the presence of NME extending directly from the mass margins. Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher exact test, and χ2 test were used to analyze cancer, patient, and imaging characteristics associated with the NME diagnosis. Results Fifty-eight patients (mean age, 58 years ± 12 [SD]; all women) were included. Malignant pathologic findings for mass-associated NME occurred in 64% (37 of 58) of patients, 43% (16 of 37) with ductal carcinoma in situ and 57% (21 of 37) with invasive carcinoma. NME was more likely to be malignant when associated with an index cancer that had a low Ki-67 index (<20%) (P = .04). The presence of calcifications at mammography correlating with mass-associated NME was not significantly associated with malignant pathologic conditions (P = .19). The span of suspicious enhancement measured at MRI overestimated the true span of disease at histologic evaluation (P < .001), while there was no evidence of a difference between span of calcifications at mammography and true span of disease at histologic evaluation (P = .27). Conclusion Mass-associated NME at preoperative MRI was malignant in most patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The span of suspicious enhancement measured at MRI overestimated the true span of disease found at histologic evaluation. Keywords: Breast, Mammography © RSNA, 2024 See also the commentary by Newell in this issue.

Imaging Changes and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Active Monitoring for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Seven-Year Follow-up Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the imaging changes and their associated positive predictive value (PPV) for invasive breast cancer in women undergoing active monitoring for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this seven-year follow-up retrospective IRB-exempted cohort study, we reviewed patients diagnosed with DCIS who elected active monitoring between 2003 and 2022 at a single academic institution. Imaging characteristics, histopathology at initial diagnosis, and subsequent follow-up were recorded. Low-risk DCIS was defined as low or intermediate grade and hormone receptor (HR) positive (estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive) disease diagnosed in women at least 40 years of age. Progression was defined as subsequent ipsilateral invasive breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 39 patients with a median age of 58.4 years (IQR: 51.1-69.6 years) and a median follow-up of 4.3 years (range: 0.6-16.4 years). Nearly two thirds of patients (64%, 25/39) had stable imaging (range: 0.6-16.4 years) and remained progression-free during active monitoring. Among the remaining 14 patients (36%), there were 24 imaging findings which prompted 22 subsequent core needle biopsies (range: 1-3 biopsies per patient) and two surgical biopsies. The PPV of invasive cancer was 29% (7/24) overall and 38% (3/8) for masses, 33% (3/9) for calcifications, 17% (1/6) for non-mass enhancement, and 0% (0/1) for architectural distortion. CONCLUSION: Of the radiographic changes prompting an additional biopsy, development of a new mass (38%) and new calcifications (33%) had the highest PPV for invasive progression. Close imaging follow-up should be a critical component for patients undergoing monitoring for DCIS.

Evolving Treatment Paradigms for Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Imaging Needs.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a nonobligate precursor to invasive cancer that classically presents as asymptomatic calcifications on screening mammography. The increase in DCIS diagnoses with organized screening programs has raised concerns about overdiagnosis, while a patientcentric push for more personalized care has increased awareness about DCIS overtreatment. The standard of care for most new DCIS diagnoses is surgical excision, but nonsurgical management via active monitoring is gaining attention, and multiple clinical trials are ongoing. Imaging, along with demographic and pathologic information, is a critical component of active monitoring efforts. Commonly used imaging modalities including mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, as well as newer modalities such as contrast-enhanced mammography and dedicated breast PET, can provide prognostic information to risk stratify patients for DCIS active monitoring eligibility. Furthermore, radiologists will be responsible for closely surveilling patients on active monitoring and identifying if invasive progression occurs. Active monitoring is a paradigm shift for DCIS care, but the success or failure will rely heavily on the interpretations and guidance of radiologists.

Patient Preferences of Breast Radiologists' Attire and Appearance.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess patient preferences for breast radiologists' attire and appearance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional anonymous, voluntary 19-question survey was administered to patients undergoing screening and diagnostic mammography examinations over a 5-week period. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents were asked about their preferences for gender-neutral attire (white coat), male-presenting attire (scrubs, dress shirt with tie, or dress shirt without tie), and female-presenting attire (scrubs, dress, blouse with pants, and blouse with skirt). Patient responses were compared to demographic data using bivariable analysis and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Response rate was 84.7% (957/1130). Mean respondent age was 57.2 years±11.9. Most respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the breast radiologist's appearance mattered (52.5%, 502/956) followed by being indifferent (28.1%, 269/956). Respondents with greater education levels felt less strongly (p=0.001) about the radiologist's appearance: 63.3% (70/110) less than college cared about appearance compared to 53.5% (266/497) college/vocational and 47.4% (165/348) graduate. Most respondents felt indifferent about a breast radiologist wearing a white coat (68.9%, 657/954) or about male-presenting breast radiologists wearing a tie (77.1%, 734/952) without significant demographic differences. Almost all respondents either prefer/strongly prefer (60.1%, 572/951) or were indifferent (39.6%, 377/951) to all breast radiologists wearing scrubs when performing procedures. While respondents approved of all attire choices overall, most respondents preferred scrubs for both male- and female-presenting breast radiologists (64.0%, 612/957 and 64.9%, 621/957, respectively). CONCLUSION: A variety of breast radiologists' attire can be worn while maintaining provider professionalism and without compromising patient expectations.

Interval Breast Cancers Versus Screen Detected Breast Cancers: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Mammographic screening detects most breast cancers but there are still women diagnosed with breast cancer between annual mammograms. We aim to identify features that differentiate screen detected breast cancers from interval breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All screening mammograms (n = 211,517) performed 7/1/2013-6/30/2020 at our institution were reviewed. Patients with breast cancer diagnosed within one year of screening were included and divided into two distinct groups: screen detected cancer group and interval cancer group. Characteristics in these groups were compared using the chi square test, fisher test, and student's T test. RESULTS: A total of 1,232 patients were included (mean age 64 +/- 11). Sensitivity of screening mammography was 92% (1,136 screen detected cancers, 96 interval cancers). Patient age, race, and personal history of breast cancer were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). Patients with interval cancers more often had dense breast tissue (75/96 = 78% versus 694/1136 = 61%, p < 0.001). Compared to screen detected cancers, interval cancers were more often primary tumor stage two or higher (41/96 = 43% versus 139/1136 = 12%, p < 0.001) and regional lymph node stage one or higher (21/96 = 22% versus 132/1136 = 12%, p = 0.003). Interval cancers were more often triple negative (16/77 = 21% versus [48/813 = 6%], p < 0.001) with high Ki67 proliferation indices (28/45 = 62% versus 188/492 = 38%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Mammographic screening had high sensitivity for breast cancer detection (92%). Interval cancers were associated with dense breast tissue and had higher stage with less favorable molecular features compared to screen detected cancers.

Axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI following COVID-19 vaccination: outcomes and follow-up recommendations.

This retrospective study presents 110 patients with suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary adenopathy on breast MRI. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI performed within one year after COVID-19 vaccination. The median time between the COVID-19 vaccine and breast MRI was shorter in patients with detected adenopathy compared to patients without detected adenopathy (6 weeks [2-17] versus 15 [7-24] weeks, p < 0.001). Unilateral axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI had a low malignancy rate (3.3%), and no cases of malignant axillary adenopathy were diagnosed without a known breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast. Our findings suggest that unilateral axillary adenopathy identified on breast MRI ipsilateral to a recent COVID-19 vaccination can be considered benign in the absence of a suspicious breast finding or known breast cancer. Regardless of vaccine status and timing, unilateral axillary adenopathy detected on MRI evaluation with a known malignancy or suspicious breast finding should be considered suspicious. This will avoid unnecessary scheduling constraints, patient anxiety, and cost, without delaying diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer.

Comparison of Diagnostic Mammography-Guided Biopsy and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Suspicious Breast Calcifications: Results in 1354 Biopsies.

BACKGROUND. Studies have shown improved targeting and sampling of noncalcified lesions (asymmetries, masses, and architectural distortion) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided biopsy in comparison with digital mammography (DM)-guided stereotactic biopsy. Literature that compares the two techniques specifically for sampling calcifications has been scarce. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance and outcomes of DM- and DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1310 patients (mean age, 58 ± 12 [SD] years) who underwent a total of 1354 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsies of suspicious calcifications performed at a single institution from May 22, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The decision to use a DM-guided or DBT-guided technique was made at the discretion of the radiologist performing the biopsy. Procedure time, the number of exposures during the procedure, and the histopathologic outcomes were recorded. The two techniques were compared using a two-sample t test for continuous variables and a chi-square test for categoric variables. Additional tests were performed using generalized estimating equations to control for the effect of the individual radiologist performing the biopsy. RESULTS. A total of 348 (26%) biopsies used DM guidance, and 1006 (74%) used DBT guidance. The mean procedure time was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (14.9 ± 8.0 [SD] minutes) than for DM-guided biopsy (24.7 ± 14.3 minutes) (p < .001). The mean number of exposures was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (4.1 ± 1.0 [SD] exposures) than for DM-guided biopsy (9.1 ± 3.3 exposures) (p < .001). The differences in procedure time and number of exposures remained significant (both p < .001) when controlling for the effect of the radiologist performing the biopsy. There were no significant differences (all p > .05) between DM-guided and DBT-guided biopsy in terms of the malignancy rate on initial biopsy (20% vs 19%), the rate of high-risk lesion upgrading (14% vs 22%), or the final malignancy rate (23% vs 22%). CONCLUSION. DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications can be performed with shorter procedure time and fewer exposures compared with DM-guided biopsy, without a significant difference in rates of malignancy or high-risk lesion upgrading. CLINICAL IMPACT. The use of a DBT-guided, rather than a DM-guided, biopsy technique for suspicious calcifications can potentially reduce patient discomfort and radiation exposure without affecting clinical outcomes.

Disparities Associated With Patient Adherence to BI-RADS 3 Assessment Follow-up Recommendations for Mammography and Ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between sociodemographic factors and adherence rates in patients with a BI-RADS 3 assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from all patients with a BI-RADS 3 assessment on mammography and ultrasound examinations at a single, multisite academic institution, which serves a diverse urban-suburban population, from January 1, 2015, to December 13, 2017. Appropriate follow-up was defined as returning for the first follow-up examination 3 to 9 months after the index examination. Associations between BI-RADS 3 adherence rates and patient sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 4,038 patients in our study period; 2,437 patients (60%) had appropriate follow-up, 765 (19%) patients had delayed follow-up, and 836 patients (21%) were lost to follow-up. The overall malignancy rate was 1.4% (46 of 3,202). Older age, retired employment status, and Medicare insurance status were associated with increased adherence to BI-RADS 3 follow-up recommendations. Black race, single relationship status, Medicaid and self-pay insurance status, and living in a top 15% disadvantaged zip code were associated with decreased adherence. On multivariate analysis, older age remained associated with increased adherence and Medicaid insurance status with decreased adherence. Time between index examination and cancer diagnosis was shorter in patients who had timely follow-up (202 days [interquartile range 183-358] versus 392 days [interquartile range 365-563], P ≤ .001), although there was not a significant difference in stage at diagnosis (P = .46). DISCUSSION: Multiple sociodemographic factors are associated with low adherence to BI-RADS 3 follow-up recommendations suggesting that more frequent and targeted interventions are needed to close disparity gaps.

BI-RADS 3 Assessment on MRI: A Lesion-Based Review for Breast Radiologists.

Unlike mammography and US, limited data exist to establish well-defined criteria for MRI findings that have a ≤2% likelihood of malignancy. Therefore, determining which findings are appropriate for a BI-RADS 3 assessment on MRI remains challenging and variable among breast radiologists. Emerging data suggest that BI-RADS 3 should be limited to baseline MRI examinations (or examinations with less than two years of prior comparisons) performed for high-risk screening and only used for masses with all of the typical morphological and kinetic features suggestive of a fibroadenoma or dominant enhancing T2 hypointense foci that is distinct from background parenchymal enhancement and without suspicious kinetics. This article presents an updated discussion of BI-RADS 3 assessment (probably benign) for breast MRI using current evidence.

Comparison of emergency pediatric breast ultrasound interpretations and management recommendations between pediatric radiologists and breast imaging radiologists.

PURPOSE: Pediatric patients with breast-related symptoms often initially present to the emergency department for evaluation. While pediatric radiologists are accustomed to evaluating acute infectious and traumatic etiologies, they may be less familiar with breast-specific findings. This study compares management recommendations of pediatric breast ultrasounds performed in the emergency setting between pediatric and breast imaging radiologists. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from all pediatric breast ultrasounds performed in the emergency setting from a single academic institution from 1/1/14 to 12/31/19. During the study period, 12 pediatric radiologists with experience ranging from 1 to 33 years interpreted pediatric breast ultrasounds. Three breast imaging radiologists (with 3, 8, and 25 years of experience) retrospectively reviewed each case and recorded whether further management was recommended. Differences in recommendations were compared using Fisher's exact test. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between subspecialty radiologists. RESULTS: This study included 75 pediatric patients, with mean age 13 ± 5.6 years and malignancy rate of 1.3% (1/75). Pediatric radiologists and the most experienced breast imaging radiologist had moderate agreement in management recommendations (k = 0.54). There was no significant difference in recommendations for further management between pediatric radiologists (22/75 [29.3%]) and the most experienced breast imaging radiologist (15/75 [20.0%]), p = 0.26. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for pediatric breast complaints in the emergency setting are comparable between subspecialties.

Outcomes of Canceled Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Architectural Distortion Due to Nonvisualization.

Objective: Architectural distortion without a sonographic correlate is an indication for digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (DBT-VAB). However, when the finding is not visualized on the day of biopsy, the procedure is canceled. This study reports the outcomes of canceled DBT-VAB of architectural distortion due to nonvisualization. Methods: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, chart review was performed to identify DBT-VABs of architectural distortion at our institution between June 1, 2017, and November 1, 2020, that were canceled because of nonvisualization at the time of biopsy. Cases without follow-up imaging were excluded. Statistical analysis, including the frequency of cases yielding malignancy by the end of the study period, was performed. Results: In total, 7.2% (39/544) of architectural distortions recommended for biopsy during the study period were canceled because of nonvisualization, 30 of which had follow-up imaging and were included in the study. Mean patient age was 56 years (standard deviation [SD], 9.6 years) and mean follow-up time was 26.7 months (SD, 11.2 months; range, 8.4-50.9 months). During the follow-up period, 16.7% (5/30) underwent repeat biopsy attempt, with one malignant result (1/30, 3.3%; SD, 18%; 95% confidence interval: 0.6%-16.7%). In total, 86.7% (26/30) of cases were declared benign during the follow-up period and 10% (3/30) remained stable with a BI-RADS 3 assessment category. Conclusion: During available follow-up, there was a low likelihood that distortions not visualized at the time of DBT-VAB represented malignancy (3.3%, 1/30). While this low malignancy rate is reassuring, imaging follow-up is warranted.

Comparison of Outcomes for One-View Asymmetries Recalled From Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening Examinations.

BACKGROUND. Recall rates are lower for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) than for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This difference could have important implications with respect to one-view asymmetries given that missed cancers are often visible on one view. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of one-view asymmetries recalled from DBT versus FFDM screening examinations and to determine predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries. METHODS. This retrospective study first determined recall rates associated with one-view asymmetries for screening mammography performed using DBT and FFDM from July 14, 2016, through July 14, 2020. Further analyses included patients recalled for a one-view asymmetry who completed subsequent diagnostic workup and all recommended follow-up. Patient and cancer characteristics were extracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS. The recall rate associated with asymmetries was lower for DBT screening (2.5% [3169/128,755]) than for FFDM screening (3.4% [815/23,898]) (p < .001). Further analyses of patients who completed diagnostic workup and subsequent follow-up included 3119 patients (mean age, 57 years) for DBT screening and 811 patients (mean age, 56 years) for FFDM screening. Distribution of final BI-RADS categories from subsequent diagnostic workup was not different between the two modalities (p > .99). The frequency of malignancy was not different between asymmetries recalled from DBT (1.7% [54/3119]) and FFDM (1.7% [14/811]) (p > .99). Malignant asymmetries identified on FFDM versus DBT were more frequently associated with architectural distortion on diagnostic workup (35.7% [5/14] vs 9.3% [5/54]) (p < .001) and were more commonly invasive ductal carcinoma (92.9% vs 57.4%) and less commonly invasive lobular carcinoma (0.0% vs 24.1%) (p = .05). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries from DBT were age (for 55-69 years, odds ratio [OR] = 2.40 [p = .04]; for ≥ 70 years, OR = 7.93 [p < .001]; reference, < 55 years) and breast density (not dense, OR = 2.47 [p = .001]; reference, dense breasts). CONCLUSION. Recalled asymmetries were less frequent for DBT than for FFDM. The malignancy rate was low for both modalities (1.7%). Age 55 years old and older and lower breast density predicted malignancy for DBT-recalled asymmetries. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results support the use of DBT to reduce unnecessary recalls without altering PPV for asymmetry-associated malignancies. Patient factors should be considered when assessing whether a potential asymmetry on DBT screening represents overlapping fibroglandular tissue or a suspicious finding that requires diagnostic workup.

Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Despite technological advancements focused on reducing breast cancer mortality through early detection, there have been reported disparities in the access to these imaging services with underserved patient populations (including racial minority groups and patients of low socioeconomic status) showing underutilization compared to other patient groups. These underserved populations tend to have more advanced breast cancer presentations, in part due to delays in diagnosis resulting in later stage of disease presentation. To make matters worse, the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020 has resulted in significant healthcare disruptions leading to extensive delays in breast imaging services which are expected to negatively impact breast cancer mortality long-term. Given the worsening disparity in breast cancer mortality among racial/ethnic minorities and financially disadvantaged groups, it is vital to address these disparity gaps with the goal of reducing the barriers to timely breast cancer diagnosis and addressing breast cancer mortality differences among breast cancer patients. Therefore, this review aims to provide a discussion highlighting the disparities related to breast imaging access, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on these disparities, current targeted interventions implemented in breast imaging practices to reduce these disparities, and future directions on the journey to reducing disparity gaps for breast imaging patients. Tackling the root cause factors of the persistent breast cancer-related disparities is critical to meeting the needs of patients who are disadvantaged and can lead to continued improvement in the quality of individualized care for patients who have higher breast cancer morbidity and mortality risks.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Axillary Adenopathy on Breast Imaging: Follow-Up Recommendations and Histopathologic Findings.

This study describes 94 patients who presented with suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary adenopathy on breast imaging. All biopsies recommended within 12 weeks of the second vaccine dose were benign. Among women not recommended for biopsy, the median interval between the second vaccine dose and ultrasound follow-up was 15.9 weeks. Three biopsies yielding malignant diagnoses were recommended 12.0-13.1 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Lengthening imaging follow-up to 12-16 weeks after the second dose may reduce unnecessary biopsy recommendations.