ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer.

As the proportion of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer increases, the role of imaging for staging and surveillance purposes should be determined based on evidence-based guidelines. It is important to understand the indications for extent of disease evaluation and staging, as unnecessary imaging can delay care and even result in adverse outcomes. In asymptomatic patients that received treatment for curative intent, there is no role for imaging to screen for distant recurrence. Routine surveillance with an annual 2-D mammogram and/or tomosynthesis is recommended to detect an in-breast recurrence or a new primary breast cancer in women with a history of breast cancer, and MRI is increasingly used as an additional screening tool in this population, especially in women with dense breasts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Breast Cancer Method of Detection: 5-Year Outcomes Across a Multisite Health Care Enterprise.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and accuracy of radiologists categorizing the method of detection (MOD) when performing image-guided breast biopsies. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study was conducted across a health care enterprise that provides breast imaging services at 18 imaging sites across four US states. Radiologists used standardized templates to categorize the MOD, defined as the first test, sign, or symptom that triggered the subsequent workup and recommendation for biopsy. All image-guided breast biopsies since the implementation of the MOD-inclusive standardized template-from October 31, 2017 to July 6, 2023-were extracted. A random sample of biopsy reports was manually reviewed to evaluate the accuracy of MOD categorization. RESULTS: A total of 29,999 biopsies were analyzed. MOD was reported in 29,423 biopsies (98.1%) at a sustained rate that improved over time. The 10 MOD categories in this study included the following: 15,184 mammograms (51.6%); 4,561 MRIs (15.5%); 3,473 ultrasounds (11.8%); 2,382 self-examinations (8.1%); 2,073 tomosynthesis studies (7.0%); 432 clinical examinations (1.5%); 421 molecular breast imaging studies (1.4%); 357 other studies (1.2%); 338 contrast-enhanced digital mammograms (1.1%); and 202 PET studies (0.7%). Original assignments of the MOD agreed with author assignments in 87% of manually reviewed biopsies (n = 100, 95% confidence interval: [80.4%, 93.6%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that US radiologists can consistently and accurately categorize the MOD over an extended time across a health care enterprise.

Including the method of detection for breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database is long overdue.

Debates about breast cancer screening have continued in part because the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, which began in 1974, has never included the method of detection so that it has been impossible to determine the role that early detection has played in the major decline in deaths from breast cancer that we have seen in the US since 1990. Method of detection should be added to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database as soon as possible.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Imaging Characteristics of and Multidisciplinary Management Considerations for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Flat Epithelial Atypia: Review of Current Literature.

High-risk lesions of the breast are frequently encountered in percutaneous biopsy specimens. While benign, these lesions have historically undergone surgical excision due to their potential to be upgraded to malignancy. However, there is emerging evidence that a tailored management approach should be considered to reduce overtreatment of these lesions. Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are two of the most commonly encountered high-risk lesions. FEA has been shown to have a relatively low rate of progression to malignancy, and some guidelines are now recommending observation over routine excision in select cases. Selective observation may be reasonable in cases where the target lesion is small and completely removed at biopsy and when there are no underlying risk factors, such as a history of breast cancer or genetic mutation or concurrent ADH. ADH has the highest potential upgrade rate to malignancy of all the high-risk lesions. Most society guidelines continue to recommend surgical excision of this lesion. More recently, some literature suggests that ADH lesions that appear completely removed at biopsy, involve limited foci (less than two or three) with no necrosis or significant atypia, manifest as a small group of mammographic calcifications, or demonstrate no enhancement at MRI may be reasonable for observation. Ultimately, management of all high-risk lesions must be based on a multidisciplinary approach that considers all patient, radiologic, clinical, and histopathologic factors. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer: 2022 Update.

Imaging plays a vital role in managing patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as treatment decisions rely heavily on accurate assessment of response to therapy. This document provides evidence-based guidelines for imaging breast cancer before, during, and after initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Current State of Peer Learning in Radiology: A Survey of ACR Members.

PURPOSE: Peer learning (PL) programs seek to improve upon the limitations of score-based peer review and incorporate modern approaches to improve patient care. The aim of this study was to further understand the landscape of PL among members of the ACR in the first quarter of 2022. METHODS: Members of the ACR were surveyed to evaluate the incidence, current practices, perceptions, and outcomes of PL in radiology practice. The survey was administered via e-mail to 20,850 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,153 respondents (6%) were similar to those of the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution of the population of radiologists and can therefore be described as representative of that population. Therefore, the error range for the results from this survey is ±2.9% at a 95% confidence level. RESULTS: Among the total sample, 610 respondents (53%) currently use PL, and 334 (29%) do not. Users of PL are younger (mode age ranges, 45-54 years for users and 55-64 years for nonusers; P < .01), more likely to be female (29% vs 23%, P < .05), and more likely to practice in urban settings (52% vs 40%, P = .0002). Users of PL feel that it supports an improved culture of safety and wellness (543 of 610 [89%]) and fosters continuous improvement initiatives (523 of 610 [86%]). Users of PL are more likely than nonusers to identify learning opportunities from routine clinical practice (83% vs 50%, P < .00001), engage in programming inclusive of more team members, and implement more practice improvement projects (P < .00001). PL users' net promoter score of 65% strongly suggests that users of PL are highly likely to recommend the program to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists across a breadth of radiology practices are engaged in PL activities, which are perceived to align with emerging principles of improving health care and enhance culture, quality, and engagement.

Applying Implementation Science Principles to Systematize High-Quality Care for Potentially Significant Imaging Findings.

OBJECTIVE: Use principles of implementation science to improve the diagnosis and management of potentially significant imaging findings. METHODS: Multidisciplinary stakeholders codified the diagnosis and management of potentially significant imaging findings in eight organs and created a finding tracking management system that was embedded in radiologist workflows and IT systems. Radiologists were trained to use this system. An automated finding tracking management system was created to support consistent high-quality care through care pathway visualizations, increased awareness of specific findings in the electronic medical record, templated notifications, and creation of an electronic safety net. Primary outcome was the rate of quality reviews related to eight targeted imaging findings. Secondary outcome was radiologist use of the finding tracking management tool. RESULTS: In the 4 years after implementation, the tool was used to track findings in 7,843 patients who received 10,015 ultrasound, CT, MRI, x-ray, and nuclear medicine examinations that were interpreted by all 34 radiologists. Use of the tool lead to a decrease in related quality reviews (from 8.0% to 0.0%, P < .007). Use of the system increased from 1.7% of examinations in the early implementation phase to 3.1% (+82%, P < .00001) in the postimplementation phase. Each radiologist used the tool on an average of 294.6 unique examinations (SD 404.8). Overall, radiologists currently use the tool approximately 4,000 times per year. DISCUSSION: Radiologists frequently used a finding tracking management system to ensure effective communication and raise awareness of the importance of recommended future follow-up studies. Use of this system was associated with a decrease in the rate of quality review requests in this domain.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge: 2022 Update.

The type of nipple discharge dictates the appropriate imaging study. Physiologic nipple discharge is common and does not require diagnostic imaging. Pathologic nipple discharge in women, men, and transgender patients necessitates breast imaging. Evidence-based guidelines were used to evaluate breast imaging modalities for appropriateness based on patient age and gender. For an adult female or male 40 years of age or greater, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is performed initially. Breast ultrasound is usually performed at the same time with rare exception. For males or females 30 to 39 years of age, mammography/DBT or breast ultrasound is performed based on institutional preference and individual patient considerations. For young women less than 30 years of age, ultrasound is performed first with mammography/DBT added if there are suspicious findings or if the patient is at elevated lifetime risk for developing breast cancer. There is a high incidence of breast cancer in males with pathologic discharge. Men 25 years and older should be evaluated using mammography/DBT and ultrasound added when indicted. In transfeminine (male-to-female) patients, mammography/DBT and ultrasound are useful due to the increased incidence of breast cancer. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of the Axilla.

This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach of the axilla in various scenarios with broad differential diagnosis ranging from inflammatory to malignant etiologies. Controversies on the management of axillary adenopathy results in disagreement on the appropriate axillary imaging tests. Ultrasound is often the appropriate initial imaging test in several clinical scenarios. Clinical information (such as age, physical examinations, risk factors) and concurrent complete breast evaluation with mammogram, tomosynthesis, or MRI impact the type of initial imaging test for the axilla. Several impactful clinical trials demonstrated that selected patient's population can received sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection with similar overall survival, and axillary lymph node dissection is a safe alternative as the nodal staging procedure for clinically node negative patients or even for some node positive patients with limited nodal tumor burden. This approach is not universally accepted, which adversely affect the type of imaging tests considered appropriate for axilla. This document is focused on the initial imaging of the axilla in various scenarios, with the understanding that concurrent or subsequent additional tests may also be performed for the breast. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Kaizen Process Improvement in Radiology: Primer for Creating a Culture of Continuous Quality Improvement.

Kaizen process improvement is an element of lean production that is an approach to creating continuous improvement. Kaizen is based on the idea that small ongoing positive changes in workflow and elimination of waste can yield major improvements over time. A focused Kaizen event, or rapid process improvement event, can lead to sustainable process improvement in health care settings that are resistant to change. This approach has been proven to be successful in health care. These events are led by a trained facilitator and coach who provides appropriate team education and engagement. To ensure success, the team must embrace the Kaizen culture, which emphasizes the development of a "learning organization" that is focused on relentless pursuit of perfection. The culture empowers all staff to improve the work they perform, with an emphasis on the process and not the individual. Respect for individual people is key in Kaizen. In radiology, this method has been successful in empowering frontline staff to improve their individual workflows. A 5-day Kaizen event has been successful in increasing on-time starts, decreasing lead time, increasing patient and staff satisfaction, and ensuring sustainability. Sustainable success can occur when the team stays true to lean principles, engages leaders, and empowers team members with the use of timely data to drive decision making. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

Report from the RSNA COVID-19 Task Force: COVID-19 Impact on Academic Radiology Research-A Survey of Vice Chairs of Research.

OBJECTIVE: Survey vice chairs of research from academic radiology departments on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on research activities. METHODS: The survey asked respondents to quantify changes in research performed during the shutdown and ramp-up, relative to pre-COVID-19 levels. Respondents estimated research activity changes by overall research type (wet, instrumentation, or core facilities: prospective non-COVID-19 clinical research and computational laboratories) and then by the research activity type (data analysis, grant or manuscript writing, clinician involvement, summer student participation, and international research fellow appointments).The χ2 test was used for comparison between shutdown and ramp-up, with Yates correction when necessary. RESULTS: Of 105 vice chairs contacted, 46 (43.8%) responded. For 95.5%, wet, instrumentation, or core facilities research decreased to ≤50% during shutdown and for 83.3% during ramp-up (P < .0001). In addition, 89.2% and 46.5% indicated reduction to ≤25% of non-COVID-19 clinical research during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .0001). Only computational research increased to 120% during shutdown (39.5%) or ramp-up (50%) (P = .8984). For data analysis from closed laboratories, 75% and 86% showed decreased activity during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P = .28). Increased grant writing during shutdown and ramp-up was reported by 45.5% and 23.3% (P = .093). For 52.3% and 23.3%, manuscript writing and submission increased during shutdown and ramp-up, respectively (P < .02). Clinician research involvement trended toward relative decreases during shutdown (84.1% versus 60.5%, P = .05). There was similar drop in summer student participation (shutdown: 86.4%, ramp-up: 83.7%, P = .95) and international researcher appointment (shutdown: 85.7%, ramp-up: 86.1%; P = .96). CONCLUSION: Many radiology research activities diminished during the COVID-19 shutdown and to a lesser extent during the ramp-up. Activities that could be done remotely, such as computational analysis and grant and manuscript writing and submission, increased.

Women's Experience With Screening Mammography During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate women's anxiety and experience undergoing screening mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An IRB-approved anonymous survey was administered to women receiving screening mammography across six sites in the U.S. and Singapore from October 7, 2020, to March 11, 2021. Using a 1-5 Likert scale, women rated their pre- and post-visit anxiety regarding having their mammogram during the COVID-19 pandemic, importance of observed COVID-19 precautions, and personal risk factors for breast cancer and severe COVID-19 illness. Post-visit change in anxiety was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test associations of pre-visit anxiety with breast cancer and COVID-19 risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 1086 women completed the survey. Of these, 59% (630/1061) had >1 breast cancer risk factor; 27% (282/1060) had >1 COVID-19 risk factors. Forty-two percent (445/1065) experienced pre-visit anxiety. Pre-visit anxiety was independently associated with risk factors for severe COVID-19 (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-3.76) and breast cancer (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.17-2.50), after adjusting for age and site. Twenty-six percent (272/1065) of women reported post-visit anxiety, an absolute 16% decrease from pre-visit anxiety (95% CI: 14%-19%, P < 0.001). Provider masking (941/1075, 88%) and physical distancing (861/1085, 79%) were rated as the most important precautions. CONCLUSION: Pre-visit anxiety was associated with COVID-19 or breast cancer risk factors and declined significantly after screening mammography. Provider masking and physical distancing were rated the most important precautions implemented by imaging clinics.

The Dense Breast Clinic: Initial Experience of a Patient-Centered Breast Imaging Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. METHODS: Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34-86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct post-consultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. CONCLUSION: A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer in Women With Breast Augmentation: Preliminary Findings.

In 17 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and MRI, both modalities were found to be concordant for the index cancer. In six of the 17 women, CEM showed an additional lesion that was confirmed by MRI. Of these six additional lesions, three were multifocal, one was multicentric, and two were contralateral; two of the six were malignant. MRI did not identify any additional cancers that were not identified on CEM. CEM may have a role in women with breast augmentation and either a contraindication or limited access to MRI.

Increasing Patient Access to MRI Examinations in an Integrated Multispecialty Practice.

A multidisciplinary team evaluated and improved the MRI processes within the authors' integrated health care system, with the aim to increase patient access to MRI. The authors created a SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based) goal of decreasing the average number of days to wait for MRI examination by 50%, from 15 to 7.5 days, while also creating capacity to meet demand for same-day and next-day MRI appointment requests. The current performance metrics and processes were compared with available benchmarking and best practice data. Several work groups were created to empower and support frontline teams to identify and capture improvement opportunities. Across all MRI processes, teams focused on creating standard work, advancing practice to top of scope, removing waste, improving communication, reducing rework, and improving patient experience. Patient access to MRI was monitored, measured as the average number of days to wait from the time of scheduling to the MRI examination and time to the third-available appointment. The authors also monitored secondary outcomes (patient satisfaction, throughput metrics) and a balancing measure (technical repeat examination rates). The access improved after intervention: the average number of days to wait for MRI access decreased from 14.2 days to 5.8 days after the intervention (-8.4 days, -59.2%, P < .0001) and third-available appointment decreased from 18 days to 0 days. Ten to 20 same-day and next-day appointments became routinely available. The throughput metrics improved, and balancing measures were not changed. This project resulted in significant improvements in patient access to MRI examinations. The findings demonstrate the value of a multidisciplinary team applying comprehensive improvement strategies to increase patient access to complex services, such as MRI. ©RSNA, 2021.

Special Report of the RSNA COVID-19 Task Force: The Short- and Long-term Financial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Private Radiology Practices.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in widespread disruption to the global economy, including demand for imaging services. The resulting reduction in demand for imaging services had an abrupt and substantial impact on private radiology practices, which are heavily dependent on examination volumes for practice revenues. The goal of this report is to describe the specific experiences of radiologists working in various types of private radiology practices during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, the authors describe factors determining the impact of the pandemic on private practices, the challenges these practices faced, the cost levers leaders adjusted, and the government subsidies sought. In addition, the authors describe adjustments practices are making to their mid- and long-term strategic plans to pivot for long-term success while managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Private practices have crafted tiered strategies to respond to the impact of the pandemic by pulling various cost levers to adjust service availability, staffing, compensation, benefits, time off, and expense reductions. In addition, they have sought additional revenues, within the boundaries of their practice, to mitigate ongoing financial losses. The longer term impact of the pandemic will alter existing practices, making some of them more likely than others to succeed in the years ahead. This report synthesizes the collective experience of private-practice radiologists shared with members of the Radiological Society of North America COVID-19 Task Force, including discussions with colleagues and leaders of private-practice radiology groups from across the United States.