Suspicious Ultrasound-Occult Non-Calcified Mammographic Masses, Asymmetries, and Architectural Distortions Are Moderate Probability for Malignancy.

Suspicious non-calcified mammographic findings have not been evaluated with modern mammographic technique, and the purpose of this work is to compare the likelihood of malignancy for those findings. To do this, 5018 consecutive mammographically guided biopsies performed during 2016-2019 at a large metropolitan, community-based hospital system were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 4396 were excluded for targeting calcifications, insufficient follow-up, or missing data. Thirty-seven of 126 masses (29.4%) were malignant, 44 of 194 asymmetries (22.7%) were malignant, and 77 of 302 architectural distortions (AD, 25.5%) were malignant. The combined likelihood of malignancy was 25.4%. Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of malignancy for each imaging finding type (all p ≤ 0.006), and a possible ultrasound correlation was associated with a higher likelihood of malignancy when all findings were considered together (p = 0.012). Two-view asymmetries were more frequently malignant than one-view asymmetries (p = 0.03). There were two false-negative biopsies (98.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). In conclusion, the 25.4% likelihood of malignancy confirms the recommendation for biopsy of suspicious, ultrasound-occult, mammographic findings. Mammographically guided biopsies were highly sensitive and specific in this study. Older patient age and a possible ultrasound correlation should raise concern given the increased likelihood of malignancy in those scenarios.

The disruptive radiologist.

Hospital and regulatory organizations recognize the downstream impact of interpersonal relationships on patient safety. There are many contributors to interpersonal dynamics, one of which includes disruptive physicians. This can stem from overt or passive behaviors and has been categorized in the literature by terms that include disruptive physicians, professionalism and burnout. The contributing factor factors to such behavior are varied and may include burnout, stress, skill deficiencies, and impairment. These behaviors can be impacted through personal and systemic influences that are difficult for administrators to elucidate due to physician and organizational confidentiality concerns. However, there are opportunities and tools where radiology practice leaders and organizations can intervene to assist the disruptive radiologist. These include during residency/fellowship training, clarifying employee expectations during the time of radiologist hiring, offering interventions during practice, providing resources such as employee assistance programs, and addressing systemic challenges. Utilizing these tool sets can improve healthcare team dynamics and increase both staff and physician retention.

Peer learning in breast imaging.

With the increasing focus on quality and safety in medicine, radiology practices are increasingly transitioning from traditional score-based peer review to peer learning. Participation in a peer learning program can increase learning, practice improvement, and cultivation of interpersonal relationships in a non-punitive environment. As breast imaging errors are the most cited in medical malpractice cases, learning and attention to and reduction of these errors in breast imaging are especially important. We describe the strengths of a peer learning program, implementation process in a breast imaging program, challenges to overcome, and strategies to support success.

Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT. METHODS: Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p < .001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p = .003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p < .001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p = .158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant. KEY POINTS: • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants. • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant - likely related to sample size.

Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare outcomes of findings seen on one view only from screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and FFDM plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 103,070 consecutive screening mammograms obtained from February 2011 through June 2014 at two community-based breast centers. Recalled findings prospectively seen on one view only were analyzed. Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test were performed, and 95% CIs were determined. RESULTS: Mammograms were acquired using FFDM (n = 71,656) and FFDM-DBT (n = 31,414) during the study period, and 2213 FFDM (3.1%) and 433 FFDM-DBT (1.4%) mammograms were recalled for one-view-only findings (p < 0.0001). The final study population (1592 FFDM and 354 FFDM-DBT) was defined after 689 of these recalled FFDM and 92 of these recalled FFDM-DBT examinations were excluded for insufficient mammographic follow-up (< 24 months). Summation artifacts accounted for more one-view-only findings from FFDM (1067/1592; 67.0%) than FFDM-DBT (190/354; 53.7%) (p < 0.0001). In the FFDM cohort, 28 one-view-only findings proved malignant (24 invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC], one invasive lobular carcinoma [ILC], and three ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]). In the FFDM-DBT cohort, 14 one-view-only findings proved malignant (11 IDC, one ILC, and two DCIS). The positive predictive value (PPV) of a one-view-only finding was significantly lower for FFDM (1.8%) than for FFDM-DBT (4.0%) (p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: One-view-only findings occur with both FFDM and FFDM-DBT and remain an important but uncommon sign of malignancy. They are more frequent, are more likely to represent summation artifacts, and have a lower PPV with FFDM than with FFDM-DBT.