Faculty Bibliography

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

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the screening recommendations that breast radiologists promote to average-risk patients and family or friends and do or would follow for themselves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of breast radiologists in the United States collected data regarding their personal and practice backgrounds, their recommendations to others for mammography and clinical and self-breast examination, and their personal screening habits based on respondent sex. The radiologists were divided into three cohorts: women 40 years old or older (group 1), women younger than 40 years (group 2), and men (group 3). The distribution of responses for each question was summarized, and proportions of total radiologists and cohorts were computed. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-seven surveys were collected. None of the radiologists recommended biennial mammography for patients ages 50-74 years, 98% (477/487) recommended yearly mammography for patients 40 years old and older, and 99% (470/476) recommended yearly mammography for family and friends 40 years old and older. The most common reasons for variance were institutional policy or provider preferences. In group 1, 96% (191/198) have yearly mammography. In group 2, 100% (83/83) have or will have yearly mammography at age 40 years and beyond. In group 3, 97% (171/176) would have yearly mammography at age 40 years and beyond if they were women. Overall, 97% (445/457) of radiologists have or would have yearly mammography at age 40 years and beyond. CONCLUSION: Nearly all (98%) of the radiologists recommend yearly mammography for average-risk women 40 years old and older and were consistent in that they "practice what they preach." Because radiologists diagnose all stages of breast cancer, their personal convictions should influence providers, patients, and the public when considering the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening guidelines.

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.