Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: The study sought to determine screening mammography recommendations that radiologists in Canada promote to average-risk patients and family or friends, and do or would do for themselves. METHODS: An online survey was delivered from February 19, 2014, to July 11, 2014. Data included radiologists' recommendations for mammography and their personal screening habits based on gender. The 3 radiologists' cohorts were women >/=40 years of age, women <40 years of age, and men. The distribution of responses for each question was summarized, and proportions for the entire group and individual cohorts were computed. RESULTS: Of 402 surveys collected, 97% (299 of 309) radiologists recommended screening every 1-2 years, 62% (192 of 309) starting >/=40 years of age and 2% (5 of 309) recommended screening every 2-3 years for women 50-74 years of age. Recommendations were similar for family and friends: 96% (294 of 305) recommended screening every 1-2 years, 66% (202 of 305) recommended screening every 1-2 years for women >/=40 years of age, and 2% (5 of 305) recommended screening every 2-3 years. For women radiologists >/=40 years of age, 76% (48 of 63) underwent screening every 1-2 years and started at 40 years of age, 76% (16 of 21) female radiologists <40 years of age would undergo screening >/=40 years of age, 100% every 1-2 years, and 90% (151 of 167) male radiologists would undergo screening every 1-2 years, with 71% (120 of 169) beginning at 40 years of age. CONCLUSION: The majority of Canadian radiologists recommend screening mammography every 1-2 years for average-risk women >/=40 years of age, whether they are patients or family and friends.

Mentoring is an extremely important component of academic medicine, including radiology, yet it is not specifically emphasized in radiology training, and many academic radiology departments in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere do not have formal mentoring programs for medical students, residents, fellows, or junior faculty. The purpose of this article is to overview the current status of mentorship in radiology, to discuss the importance of mentorship at multiple levels and its potential benefits in particular, as well as how to conduct a successful mentor-mentee relationship. The literature on mentorship in radiology and in academic medicine in general is reviewed.

The American College of Radiology released the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in 2014 (copyright 2013), which includes the expanded second edition of the ultrasound BI-RADS lexicon. This review provides a practical summary of the updated lexicon, including selective illustrations with original clinical images, a discussion of overarching concepts, and examples of current clinical applications

OBJECTIVES: This study was a multicenter evaluation of the SAVI SCOUT(R) breast localization and surgical guidance system using micro-impulse radar technology for the removal of nonpalpable breast lesions. The study was designed to validate the results of a recent 50-patient pilot study in a larger multi-institution trial. The primary endpoints were the rates of successful reflector placement, localization, and removal. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective trial enrolled patients scheduled to have excisional biopsy or breast-conserving surgery of a nonpalpable breast lesion. From March to November 2015, 154 patients were consented and evaluated by 20 radiologists and 16 surgeons at 11 participating centers. Patients had SCOUT(R) reflectors placed up to 7 days before surgery, and placement was confirmed by mammography or ultrasonography. Implanted reflectors were detected by the SCOUT(R) handpiece and console. Presence of the reflector in the excised surgical specimen was confirmed radiographically, and specimens were sent for routine pathology. RESULTS: SCOUT(R) reflectors were successfully placed in 153 of 154 patients. In one case, the reflector was placed at a distance from the target that required a wire to be placed. All 154 lesions and reflectors were successfully removed during surgery. For 101 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cancer, 86 (85.1 %) had clear margins, and 17 (16.8 %) patients required margin reexcision. CONCLUSIONS: SCOUT(R) provides a reliable and effective alternative method for the localization and surgical excision of nonpalpable breast lesions using no wires or radioactive materials, with excellent patient, radiologist, and surgeon acceptance.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe our early experience with radiologist-led direct public education about imaging-based cancer screening examinations, with a focus on the level of satisfaction and the educational impact reported by session participants. METHODS: Subspecialty radiologists provided 1-hour educational sessions to small lay public audiences covering breast, prostate, and lung cancer screening, focusing on key radiologic screening tests. Subsequently, session participants completed a survey pertaining to their levels of satisfaction and the perceived impact of the sessions on knowledge of the diseases and relevant screening tests; results from all topic sessions were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen participants attended a total of 144 sessions. The large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions increased their understanding (95.4%), they gained information not obtained from clinic visit (88.1%), seeing radiology images helped their understanding (92.6%), they felt more involved in their own care (85.8%), they felt more prepared to undergo screening tests (87.4%), they were satisfied with the sessions' format (93.3%) and content (96.2%), their main questions were answered (88.3%), they would be interested in similar future radiologist-led sessions (88.5%), and they would recommend the sessions to friends (93.9%). The provided information (43.1%) and images (34.7%) were identified as the most helpful aspects of the sessions. CONCLUSION: Radiologist-led direct public education sessions about imaging-based cancer screening examinations yield high levels of audience satisfaction and add value to the public's understanding of the role of radiology and radiologists. Our experience may provide an encouraging model for other radiology practices in pursuing similar endeavors.

PURPOSE: Anxiety has been called a "harm" of screening mammography. The authors provided direct, interactive education to lay audiences and measured these sessions' impact on anxiety and any increased understanding of breast cancer screening. METHODS: Academic breast radiologist provided seven 1-hour sessions of structured lectures and question-and-answer periods. Lay language and radiologic images were used to discuss disease background, screening guidelines, and areas of debate. One hundred seventeen participants (mean age, 45 +/- 15 years) completed voluntary, anonymous, institutional review board-approved pre and postsession questionnaires relaying their attitudes regarding screening and the impact of the sessions. Results are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Mean reported anxiety regarding screening (on a scale ranging from 1-5; 1 = no anxiety) was 2.5 +/- 1.3. Anxiety was attributed to unknown results (56.4%), anticipation of pain (21.8%), known risk factors (14.5%), general uncertainty (12.7%), waiting for results (9.1%), possibility of more procedures (3.6%), and personal breast cancer history (3.6%). Ninety-seven percent reported that immediate results would lower anxiety (78% of those women indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety); 93% reported that radiologist consultation with images would lower anxiety (75.6% indicated a 75%-100% decrease in anxiety). After the lecture, women reported (on a scale ranging from 1-5) increased understanding of the topic (4.7 +/- 0.6), encouragement to screen (4.6 +/- 0.7), and reduced anxiety (4.0 +/- 1.1). Ninety-seven percent to 100% provided correct responses to these questions: rationale for screening in the absence of family history, recall does not equate to cancer diagnosis, benefit of prior films, and continued importance of physical examination. CONCLUSION: Attendees of radiologist-provided direct public lectures reported decreased anxiety and improved knowledge regarding screening mammography. The resultant reduced anxiety ("harm") and educational empowerment help enable informed decision making and may promote screening attendance.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between mammographic breast density (MBD), background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and fibroglandular tissue (FGT) in women with breast cancer (BC) and at high risk for developing BC. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried for patients who underwent mammography and MRI. RESULTS: Four hundred three (85%) had BC and 72 (15%) were at high risk. MBD (P=.0005), BPE (P<.0001), and FGT (P=.02) were all higher in high-risk women compared to the BC group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of MBD, BPE and FGT are seen in women at higher risk for developing BC when compared to women with BC.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe our early experience with radiologist-led direct public education about imaging-based cancer screening examinations, with a focus on the level of satisfaction and the educational impact reported by session participants. METHODS: Subspecialty radiologists provided 1-hour educational sessions to small lay public audiences covering breast, prostate, and lung cancer screening, focusing on key radiologic screening tests. Subsequently, session participants completed a survey pertaining to their levels of satisfaction and the perceived impact of the sessions on knowledge of the diseases and relevant screening tests; results from all topic sessions were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen participants attended a total of 144 sessions. The large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the sessions increased their understanding (95.4%), they gained information not obtained from clinic visit (88.1%), seeing radiology images helped their understanding (92.6%), they felt more involved in their own care (85.8%), they felt more prepared to undergo screening tests (87.4%), they were satisfied with the sessions' format (93.3%) and content (96.2%), their main questions were answered (88.3%), they would be interested in similar future radiologist-led sessions (88.5%), and they would recommend the sessions to friends (93.9%). The provided information (43.1%) and images (34.7%) were identified as the most helpful aspects of the sessions. CONCLUSION: Radiologist-led direct public education sessions about imaging-based cancer screening examinations yield high levels of audience satisfaction and add value to the public's understanding of the role of radiology and radiologists. Our experience may provide an encouraging model for other radiology practices in pursuing similar endeavors.

OBJECTIVE: Breast density is increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer, because it has been shown to be associated with a four- to sixfold increase in a woman's risk of malignant breast disease. Increased breast density as identified on mammography is also known to decrease the diagnostic sensitivity of the examination, which is of great concern to women at increased risk for breast cancer. Dense tissue has generally been associated with younger age and premenopausal status, with the assumption that breast density gradually decreases after menopause. However, the actual proportion of older women with dense breasts is unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between age and breast density, particularly focusing on postmenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All screening mammograms completed at the New York University Langone Medical Center in 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Analysis of variance and descriptive analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between patient age and breast density. RESULTS: A total of 7007 screening mammograms were performed. The median age of our cohort was 57 years. Within each subgroup categorized by decade of age, there was a normal distribution among the categories of breast density. There was a significant inverse relationship between age and breast density (p < 0.001). Seventy-four percent of patients between 40 and 49 years old had dense breasts. This percentage decreased to 57% of women in their 50s. However, 44% of women in their 60s and 36% of women in their 70s had dense breasts as characterized on their screening mammograms. CONCLUSION: In general, we found an inverse relationship between patient age and mammographic breast density. However, there were outliers at the extremes of age. A meaningful proportion of young women had predominantly fatty breasts and a subset of older women had extremely dense breasts. Increased density renders mammography a less sensitive tool for early detection. Breast density should be considered when evaluating the potential benefit of extended imaging for breast cancer screening, especially for women at increased risk for the disease.