A Breast Imaging Case of Steatocystoma Multiplex: A Rare Condition Involving Multiple Anatomic Regions.

Steatocystoma multiplex is an uncommon disease consisting of multiple cysts erupting over the chest, arms, axilla, and neck. It is of unknown incidence and can occur as a spontaneous mutation or inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. A 47-year-old female with a past medical history only significant for multiple skin infections presented for a routine mammogram. Her imaging showed multiple circumscribed oil cysts. When contacted regarding the results, the patient said she has noticed multiple cysts presenting on her inner arms, chest, and trunk, of which one would occasionally exsanguinate oily material. She denies any other associated symptoms and says that she is the only member of her family to have these symptoms. The patient was informed of her diagnosis and requested to follow up with her primary care physician to monitor her symptoms. In summary, steatocystoma multiplex is a rare benign condition that can present similarly to a variety of other pathologies. It is important to note the unique clinical features of steatocystoma multiplex in order to prevent unnecessary and costly workup for patients who have this benign condition.

Impact of same day screening mammogram results on women's satisfaction and overall breast cancer screening experience: a quality improvement survey analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most women undergoing screening examinations in the U.S. do not receive immediate results and for many this results in increased stress, inconvenience, delayed diagnosis, and potential loss to follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of same appointment mammogram results on breast cancer screening experience and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-question survey with questions focused on breast cancer screening experience with our new service of same appointment mammogram results was distributed to 200 patients, with 185 patients returning their responses. Patients evaluated their current experience on receiving their screening results during the same appointment with their prior breast cancer screening experience. Patients who did not respond to their satisfaction score either before or after same appointment results were excluded from the patient cohort analyzing satisfaction score. Remaining questions were analyzed separately as additional satisfaction assessment tools. RESULTS: About 48% of the patients indicated an improvement in their screening experience with same appointment mammography results service, while 47% of the patients reported no significant difference in their experience. CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, same appointment mammogram results were able to make a positive impact on breast cancer screening experience among 48% of the patients. Further research elucidating barriers to screening and other ways to improve patient satisfaction will be required to increase breast cancer screening compliance.

Collaboration, Collegiality, and Sharing of Resources: Benefits of a Visiting Professor Exchange Program in Breast Imaging.

The role of a visiting professor (VP) has long been used as a model to share medical knowledge and new advances between different teaching institutions. As with all subspecialties, breast imaging has institution-specific differences in resources and faculty. Sharing of resources between programs can have a profound impact on enriching educational experiences for learners. Our conceptual design of a VP lecture exchange program was between two academic medical centers, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System (VCU) and MedStar Georgetown University Hospital University (MGUH), in the subspecialty of breast imaging. The program was designed to supplement potential areas of weakness in the breast imaging educational curriculum at each respective institution. The program also sought to create opportunities for long-term mentorship and collaboration between institutions. Three faculty members from VCU and three faculty members from MGUH participated for a total of six lectures (three lectures at each site). Participating residents and faculty completed anonymous surveys following each lecture regarding the lecture exchange program experience. The survey responses showed that the VP exchange was well received at both institutions. The VP exchange process was relatively easy to arrange, benefits both institutions, and could even be expanded to the virtual environment.

Communicating Mammography Results: By What Method and How Quickly Do Women Want Their Screening Mammogram Results?

The purpose of the survey study was to understand the majority preference with regards to the wait time for screening mammogram results, whether prompt communication of mammogram results was of importance to patients, whether the time frame to schedule an additional imaging follow-up appointment after an abnormal screening mammogram was important to patients, and how patients preferred to be given their screening mammogram results. There were 2,245 patients who participated in the survey. A majority of patients preferred to receive screening mammogram results on Friday (n = 1,868, 85.4%), even if their mammogram was abnormal, requiring a follow-up appointment that could not be scheduled until the following week. Most individuals preferred to schedule their follow-up appointments soon after their initial appointment, preferring either the next day or within 1 to 2 days. Finally, over half of the sample preferred to be contacted via a telephone call, with letter and text messaging being the next most preferred methods and e-mail being the least preferred. Survey results suggest that the preferred wait time for screening mammogram results was either to wait at the time of screening mammogram appointment or to receive results within 48 hours. These suggestions can help clinics and providers make changes to how they communicate screening mammogram results. The strong preference of patients receiving their screening mammogram results more promptly should help trigger alternative methods toward improving communication between the radiologist and the patient.

A prospective comparative study to evaluate the displacement of four commercially available breast biopsy markers.

OBJECTIVE: Radiopaque markers are commonly deployed following breast biopsies to indicate the location of the targeted lesion. A frequently encountered complication is the displacement of these markers. This study compared the degree of displacement among four newer generation markers after stereotactic core needle biopsy. METHODS: 80 consecutive biopsies were performed at three breast centre sites. The markers included: HydroMARK(®) (Mammotome, Cincinnati, OH), MammoMARK™ (Mammotome, Cincinnati, OH), MammoStar™ (Mammotome, Cincinnati, OH) and SecurMark(®) (Hologic, Bedford, MA). Each marker was composed of a radiopaque core with a unique polymeric encasing component. Post-procedure mammograms were obtained and the degree of marker displacement was measured. RESULTS: MammoMARK™ exhibited the greatest mean net displacement, followed by HydroMARK(®), SecurMark(®) and MammoStar™ (13.9, 7.7, 5.8 and 4.7 mm, respectively), although these differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.398). 73% of the markers did not displace at all. However, in the 19 of 22 markers in which displacement occurred, the distance from the biopsy cavity was >10 mm. No statistically significant contributing factors to predict displacement were found. CONCLUSION: Newer generation biopsy markers perform comparably with one another. However, clinically significant and unpredictable marker displacement persists. Compared with multiple similar studies of older generation bare metallic markers, the overall displacement rate of newer generation markers seems to be lower, possibly owing to the use of polymeric embedding agents that self-expand within the biopsy cavity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article compares the post-procedure displacement of breast biopsy markers, which have not been evaluated or discussed in detail since markers with polymeric embedding agents gained widespread use.

Fat Necrosis of the Breast: A Pictorial Review of the Mammographic, Ultrasound, CT, and MRI Findings with Histopathologic Correlation.

Fat necrosis of the breast is a challenging diagnosis due to the various appearances on mammography, ultrasound, CT, PET-CT, and MRI. Although mammography is more specific, ultrasound is a very important tool in making the diagnosis of fat necrosis. MRI has a wide spectrum of findings for fat necrosis and the appearance is the result of the amount of the inflammatory reaction, the amount of liquefied fat, and the degree of fibrosis. While CT and PET-CT are not first line imaging examinations for the diagnosis of breast cancer or fat necrosis, they are frequently performed in the surveillance and staging of disease. Knowledge of how fat necrosis presents on these additional imaging techniques is important to prevent misinterpretation of the imaging findings. Gross and microscopic appearances of fat necrosis depend on the age of the lesion; the histologic examination of fat necrosis is usually straightforward. Knowledge of the variable appearances of fat necrosis on a vast array of imaging modalities will enhance a radiologist's accuracy in the analysis and interpretation of fat necrosis versus other diagnoses.

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.

Survey on imaging management and handling of breast surgical specimens by radiologists.

PURPOSE: Imaging management of surgically removed breast biopsy specimens is a common, perhaps daily, procedure for radiologists and breast imagers. At many institutions throughout the United States, excised specimens are radiographically analyzed for verification of lesion removal. However, the exact process by which this is performed differs substantially among institutions, with wide variability of practice and lack of a uniform protocol. METHODS: An anonymous survey consisting of 13 multiple-choice questions was sent to 2,428 members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Results were subsequently categorized and tabulated in the Henry Ford Hospital Department of Biostatistics. RESULTS: There was a total of 354 responses to the survey, for a response rate of 14.6% (354 of 2,428). A clear majority of respondents (85%) reported the presence of department-wide standards for excisional (surgical) biopsy specimen processing. In 31% of cases, specimens were transferred two or more times between separate containers. This resulted in an increased concern for spills and leakage of biohazardous materials for 17% of the surveyed population. In addition, increased concern for sharps, or "needlestick" injuries, was also reported. CONCLUSIONS: There exist within many breast imaging departments standardized methods for processing breast biopsy specimens arriving from the operating room. However, the protocols and methods of analysis differ substantially from institution to institution. These survey results demonstrate a clear desire among radiologists for a more widespread, uniform standard, taking into account the accuracy of the procedure, cost, and the health and safety of staff members within the department.

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: MR imaging findings with histopathologic correlation.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a noninvasive malignancy that is commonly encountered at routine breast imaging. It may be a primary tumor or may be seen in association with other focal higher-grade tumors. Early detection is important because of the large proportion of DCIS that can progress to invasive carcinoma. The extent of DCIS involvement is frequently underestimated at mammography, which can reliably help detect only calcified DCIS; consequently, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging evaluation can alter the course of treatment. Seven biopsy-proved cases of DCIS were evaluated with T2-weighted MR imaging sequences, as well as T1-weighted sequences performed both before and after contrast material administration. The signal intensity and enhancement patterns of the tumors were analyzed, and the findings were correlated with the relevant underlying histopathologic features. Common enhancement patterns of DCIS include clumped linear-ductal enhancement, clumped focal enhancement, and masslike enhancement. The most common enhancement distribution pattern is segmental, followed by focal, diffuse, linear-ductal, and regional patterns. At T2-weighted MR imaging, DCIS is typically isointense relative to breast parenchyma; less commonly, it is hypointense or hyperintense. The use of MR imaging in the evaluation of DCIS is controversial, and many questions remain with regard to treatment and management. However, breast MR imaging can be extremely useful in the preoperative diagnosis and evaluation of DCIS when used in conjunction with other imaging modalities.