Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis.

Background Combined digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (hereafter, DM plus DBT) has increased cancer detection rates when compared with those achieved with DM-only screening. However, there is limited literature on DBT as an adjunct to mammography in the staging of known breast cancers. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of DM alone with that of DM plus DBT in the identification of additional ipsilateral and contralateral lesions in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Materials and Methods This prospective study ( https://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01881880) included 166 women with breast cancer (mean age, 59.5 years ± 11; age range, 40-87 years) and used the aforementioned techniques, with breast MRI and pathologic verification of all suspected lesions as the reference standards. Four radiologists independently reviewed the DM and DM plus DBT images using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems criteria for diagnosis of index lesions and presence of additional disease. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) obtained for DM and DM plus DBT were compared by using the McNemar test. Results Twenty-four women (14%) exhibited multifocal lesions; 20 (12%), multicentric lesions; 39 (23%), additional ipsilateral lesions; and 18 (11%), bilateral lesions. The sensitivities were higher for DM plus DBT than for DM in the diagnosis of multicentric (51% [41 of 80] vs 37% [30 of 80], P = .002) and additional ipsilateral (52% [81 of 156] vs 44% [69 of 156], P = .007) lesions. The AUC was larger for DM plus DBT than for DM (0.74 vs 0.67, P = .02) in the diagnosis of bilateral breast cancer. No significant differences in specificity were noted. The added diagnostic value of DBT was limited to the group of women with nondense breasts: For diagnosis of ipsilateral lesions, AUC of DM plus DBT versus DM was 0.74 versus 0.70 (P = .04). For diagnosis of contralateral lesions, AUC of DM plus DBT verus DM was 0.76 versus 0.68 (P = .02). Conclusion The combination of digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis improves diagnostic accuracy for additional ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer in women with nondense breasts. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Moy in this issue.

Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with a small-caliber device: A multicenter consecutive study of 162 biopsied lesions.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to analyze technical and diagnostic potential, and safety of the small-caliber vacuum-assisted biopsy (SCVAB) device in a multicenter consecutive study taking into consideration the type and location of breast lesion. METHODS: We collected data from 5 breast imaging centers where radiologists used the SCVAB device for biopsies in 162 patients. We analyzed the conditions for using the SCVAB device according to the characteristics of the lesions, the volume of excision, and the analyzability obtained by biopsy samples. RESULTS: The biopsies of 80 circumscribed masses, 61 complex lesions, and 24 microcalcification foci were included in the study. The reasons for choosing SCVAB as an initial technique were identified. A total of 47 lesions were removed with SCVAB; among them, 24 lesions were initially chosen for total excision. SCVAB was used as a second-choice biopsy method after core-needle biopsy failure in 20 cases. If SCVAB had not been available, vacuum-assisted biopsy would have been the most frequently used technique (106 under ultrasound, and 18 under stereotactical guidance). CONCLUSIONS: The SCVAB system is an alternative to classical vacuum biopsy, enabling representative samples to be obtained from lesions that are difficult to access, complex, small, or in cases of unsuccessful previous biopsy. The SCVAB system was determined as the chosen technique by the radiologists in this study due to feasibility, ergonomics and absence of side effects detected in this study.

Elastography in the assessment of sentinel lymph nodes prior to dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer starts as a local tumor but can become metastatic and spread via the lymph nodes. When the pre-operative assessment of the axillary lymph nodes is negative patients generally undergo sentinel node biopsy (SNB), followed by a secondary surgical axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) if the SNB is positive. The extemporaneous anatomo-pathological analysis of the sentinel lymph node enables metastases to be detected and an ALND at the same time of the SNB. The goal of this study was to evaluate the added value of ShearWave Elastography (SWE), compared with the conventional pre-operative assessment, in the screening of sentinel lymph nodes with a high metastatic risk, which could then benefit from an extemporaneous anatomo-pathological analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women undergoing breast surgery with SNB were prospectively enrolled. Before surgery, they underwent ultrasound and elastography imaging of axillary lymph nodes using the SuperSonic Imagine device and its ShearWave™ elastography mode (SWE™). The results obtained were compared to the immunohistochemical results for the removed lymph nodes. RESULTS: 65 patients were enrolled. From the 103 lymph nodes examined by elastography and the 185 lymph nodes removed we were able to pair 81; 70 were healthy and 11 were malignant. The stiffness measurements (mean and maximal values) were significantly different between the healthy and metastatic lymph nodes, (p<0.05). The areas under the ROC curves were 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-0.94) and 0.75 (95%CI: 0.55-0.95) for the mean and the maximal stiffness, respectively. CONCLUSION: These encouraging results show a correlation between the metastatic risk of lymph nodes and their increased mean stiffness. Elasticity variables and potential thresholds that seem to predict the metastatic status of axillary lymph nodes were identified. If confirmed by further larger studies, these results could be useful in clinical practice for the identification of lymph nodes at high metastatic risk that could benefit from a intra-operative analysis to reduce the number of secondary surgical procedures.

Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding shear-wave (SW) elastographic features could improve accuracy of ultrasonographic (US) assessment of breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2008 to September 2010, 958 women consented to repeat standard breast US supplemented by quantitative SW elastographic examination in this prospective multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. B-mode Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) features and assessments were recorded. SW elastographic evaluation (mean, maximum, and minimum elasticity of stiffest portion of mass and surrounding tissue; lesion-to-fat elasticity ratio; ratio of SW elastographic-to-B-mode lesion diameter or area; SW elastographic lesion shape and homogeneity) was performed. Qualitative color SW elastographic stiffness was assessed independently. Nine hundred thirty-nine masses were analyzable; 102 BI-RADS category 2 masses were assumed to be benign; reference standard was available for 837 category 3 or higher lesions. Considering BI-RADS category 4a or higher as test positive for malignancy, effect of SW elastographic features on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity after reclassifying category 3 and 4a masses was determined. RESULTS: Median participant age was 50 years; 289 of 939 (30.8%) masses were malignant (median mass size, 12 mm). B-mode BI-RADS AUC was 0.950; eight of 303 (2.6%) BI-RADS category 3 masses, 18 of 193 (9.3%) category 4a lesions, 41 of 97 (42%) category 4b lesions, 42 of 57 (74%) category 4c lesions, and 180 of 187 (96.3%) category 5 lesions were malignant. By using visual color stiffness to selectively upgrade category 3 and lack of stiffness to downgrade category 4a masses, specificity improved from 61.1% (397 of 650) to 78.5% (510 of 650) (P<.001); AUC increased to 0.962 (P=.005). Oval shape on SW elastographic images and quantitative maximum elasticity of 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less improved specificity (69.4% [451 of 650] and 77.4% [503 of 650], P<.001 for both), without significant improvement in sensitivity or AUC. CONCLUSION: Adding SW elastographic features to BI-RADS feature analysis improved specificity of breast US mass assessment without loss of sensitivity.

Radiographic findings after breast augmentation by autologous fat transfer.

BACKGROUND: Fat transfer to healthy breasts, that is, in women with no history of breast disease, particularly breast cancer, is becoming increasingly popular. The main issue remains whether the transfer of fat cells to the native breast hampers breast imaging. This pilot study aimed to assess the effectiveness of radiographic evaluation after breast lipomodeling and to propose objective elements for the detection of mammographic signs, and for postoperative evaluation of breast density and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (American College of Radiology) classification. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the radiographic findings of patients undergoing breast lipomodeling between 2000 and 2008. A descriptive semiologic analysis was conducted. Then, the authors compared breast tissue density and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categorization in 20 patients with preoperative and postoperative images available for review. RESULTS: The descriptive analysis identified 16 percent of mammograms with microcalcifications, 9 percent with macrocalcifications, 25 percent with clear well-focused images of cystic lesions, and 12 percent with tissue remodeling. The comparative study showed no statistically significant difference between breast density findings before and after fat injection, whether using the American College of Radiology classification or a personalized rating system. Similarly, no significant difference was observed using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categorization before and after fat grafting. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic follow-up of breasts treated with fat grafting is not problematic and should not be a hindrance to the procedure. However, the authors' preliminary results should be confirmed in larger series, and the radiographic follow-up of women undergoing breast lipomodeling should be standardized to ensure reproducibility and improve patient safety.