Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To capture shifts in breast imaging through 21years of scientific meeting abstracts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RSNA meeting programs (1995-2015) were searched to identify breast imaging scientific oral abstracts. Abstract year, author gender and degree, country, state, study design, modality, topic, funding and disclosures were recorded. Spearman correlation was performed. RESULTS: There was an increase in %women first authors (rs=0.81, p<0.001), in %international abstracts (rs=-0.64, p=0.0002) and in industry funding (rs=0.766, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: %Women first author presenters and %international presence and %industry support increased over time. These areas of flux may be useful for continued tracking.

This article reviews new developments in breast imaging. There is growing interest in creating a shorter, less expensive MR protocol with broader applicability. There is an increasing focus on and consideration for the additive impact that functional analysis of breast pathology have on identifying and characterizing lesions. These developments apply to MR imaging and molecular imaging. This article reviews evolving breast imaging techniques with attention to strengths, weaknesses, and applications of these approaches. We aim to give the reader familiarity with the state of current developments in the field and to increase awareness of what to expect in breast imaging.

Purpose To assess adherence with annual or biennial screening mammography after a diagnosis of high-risk lesion(s) at stereotactic biopsy with or without surgical excision and to identify clinical factors that may affect screening adherence after a high-risk diagnosis. Materials and Methods This institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study included 208 patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy between January 2012 and December 2014 that revealed a high-risk lesion. Whether the patient underwent surgical excision and/or follow-up mammography was documented. Adherence of these women to a protocol of subsequent mammography within 1 year (9-18 months) or within 2 years (9-30 months) was compared with that of 45 508 women with normal screening mammograms who were imaged during the same time period at the same institution. Possible factors relevant to postdiagnosis management and screening adherence were assessed. Consultation with a breast surgeon was identified by reviewing clinical notes. Uptake of pharmacologic chemoprevention following diagnosis (patient decision to take chemopreventive medications) was assessed. The Fisher exact test was used to compare annual or biennial screening adherence rates. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of whether women returned for screening within selected time frames. Results In total, 913 (1.3%) of 67 874 women were given a recommendation to undergo stereotactic biopsy, resulting in diagnosis of 208 (22.8%) of 913 high-risk lesions. Excluding those with a prior personal history of breast cancer or upgrade to cancer at surgery, 124 (66.7%) of 186 women underwent surgery and 62 (33.3%) did not. Overall post-high-risk diagnosis adherence to annual or biennial mammography was similar to that in control subjects (annual, 56.4% vs 50.8%, P = .160; biennial, 62.0% vs 60.1%, P = .630). Adherence was significantly better in the surgical group than in the nonsurgical group for annual mammography (70.0% vs 32.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4, 10.1; P < .001) and for biennial mammography (74.3% vs 40.0%; OR = 4.3; 95% CI: 2.1, 8.8; P < .001). Among the patients in the nonsurgical group, those adherent to annual or biennial mammography were significantly more likely to have seen a breast surgeon than the nonadherent women (annual, 77.3% vs 35.7%, P = .005; biennial, 67.9% vs 36.4%, P = .045). All patients receiving chemopreventive agents underwent a surgical consultation (100%; n = 21). Conclusion Although diagnosis of a high-risk lesion at stereotactic breast biopsy did not compromise overall adherence to subsequent mammographic screening, patients without surgical excision, particularly those who did not undergo a surgical consultation, had significantly lower imaging adherence and chemoprevention uptake as compared with their counterparts who underwent surgery, suggesting that specialist care may be important in optimizing management. © RSNA, 2018.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether false-positive stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) affects subsequent mammographic screening adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:tests. RESULTS:There were 913 SVABs performed in 2012 to 2014 for imaging detected lesions; of these, malignant or high-risk lesions or biopsies resulting in a recommendation of surgical excision were excluded, leaving 395 SVABs yielding benign pathology in 395 women. Findings were matched with a control population consisting of 45,126 women who had a BI-RADS 1 or 2 screening mammogram and did not undergo breast biopsy. In all, 191 of 395 (48.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 22,668 of 45,126 (50.2%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >9 months and ≤18 months after the index examination (P = .479). In addition, 57 of 395 (14.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 3,336 of 45,126 (7.4%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >18 months after the index examination (P < .001). Older women, women with personal history of breast cancer, and women with postbiopsy complication after benign SVAB were more likely to return for screening (P = .026, P = .028, and P = .026, respectively). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The findings in our study suggest that SVABs with benign results do not negatively impact screening mammography adherence. The previously described "harms" of false-positive mammography and biopsy may be exaggerated.

Patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancers are often treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical intervention. The primary aims of this approach are to: 1) reduce tumor burden thereby permitting breast conservation rather than mastectomy; 2) promptly treat possible metastatic disease, whether or not it is detectable on preoperative staging; and 3) potentially tailor future chemotherapeutic decisions by monitoring in-vivo tumor response. Accurate radiological assessment permits optimal management and planning in this population. However, assessment of tumor size and response to treatment can vary depending on the modality used, the measurement technique (such as single longest diameter, 3-D measurements, or calculated tumor volume), and varied response of different tumor subtypes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (such as concentric shrinkage or tumor fragmentation). As discussed in further detail, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, US and MRI represent the key modalities with potential to help guide patient management. 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.

Breast cancer screening recommendations are based on risk factors. For average-risk women, screening mammography and/or digital breast tomosynthesis is recommended beginning at age 40. Ultrasound (US) may be useful as an adjunct to mammography for incremental cancer detection in women with dense breasts, but the balance between increased cancer detection and the increased risk of a false-positive examination should be considered in the decision. For intermediate-risk women, US or MRI may be indicated as an adjunct to mammography depending upon specific risk factors. For women at high risk due to prior mantle radiation between the ages of 10 to 30, mammography is recommended starting 8 years after radiation therapy but not before age 25. For women with a genetic predisposition, annual screening mammography is recommended beginning 10 years earlier than the affected relative at the time of diagnosis but not before age 30. Annual screening MRI is recommended in high-risk women as an adjunct to mammography. 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.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of Dixon radial volumetric encoding (Dixon-RAVE) for comprehensive dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast using a combination of radial sampling, model-based fat/water separation, compressed sensing, and parallel imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study, 24 consecutive patients underwent bilateral breast MRI, including both conventional fat-suppressed and non-fat-suppressed precontrast T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE). Afterward, 1 continuous Dixon-RAVE scan was performed with the proposed approach while the contrast agent was injected. This scan was immediately followed by the acquisition of 4 conventional fat-saturated VIBE scans. From the comprehensive Dixon-RAVE data set, different image contrasts were reconstructed that are comparable to the separate conventional VIBE scans.Two radiologists independently rated image quality, conspicuity of fibroglandular tissue from fat (FG), and degree of fat suppression (FS) on a 5-point Likert-type scale for the following 3 comparisons: precontrast fat-suppressed (pre-FS), precontrast non-fat-suppressed (pre-NFS), and dynamic fat-suppressed (dyn-FS) images. RESULTS: When scores were averaged over readers, Dixon-RAVE achieved significantly higher (P < 0.001) degree of fat suppression compared with VIBE, for both pre-FS (4.25 vs 3.67) and dyn-FS (4.10 vs 3.46) images. Although Dixon-RAVE had lower image quality score compared with VIBE for the pre-FS (3.56 vs 3.67, P = 0.490), the pre-NFS (3.54 vs 3.88, P = 0.009), and the dyn-FS images (3.06 vs 3.67, P < 0.001), acceptable or better diagnostic quality was achieved (score >/= 3). The FG score for Dixon-RAVE in comparison to VIBE was significantly higher for the pre-FS image (4.23 vs 3.85, P = 0.044), lower for the pre-NFS image (3.98 vs 4.25, P = 0.054), and higher for the dynamic fat-suppressed image (3.90 vs 3.85, P = 0.845). CONCLUSIONS: Dixon-RAVE can serve as a one-stop-shop approach for comprehensive T1-weighted breast MRI with diagnostic image quality, high spatiotemporal resolution, reduced overall scan time, and improved fat suppression compared with conventional imaging.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale). RESULTS: There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score >/= 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.

PURPOSE: To compare a novel multicoil compressed sensing technique with flexible temporal resolution, golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP), to conventional fat-suppressed spoiled three-dimensional (3D) gradient-echo (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination, VIBE) MRI in evaluating the conspicuity of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March and August 2015, 121 women (24-84 years; mean, 49.7 years) with 180 biopsy-proven benign and malignant lesions were imaged consecutively at 3.0 Tesla in a dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI exam using sagittal T1-weighted fat-suppressed 3D VIBE in this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective study. Subjects underwent MRI-guided breast biopsy (mean, 13 days [1-95 days]) using GRASP DCE-MRI, a fat-suppressed radial "stack-of-stars" 3D FLASH sequence with golden-angle ordering. Three readers independently evaluated breast lesions on both sequences. Statistical analysis included mixed models with generalized estimating equations, kappa-weighted coefficients and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All lesions demonstrated good conspicuity on VIBE and GRASP sequences (4.28 +/- 0.81 versus 3.65 +/- 1.22), with no significant difference in lesion detection (P = 0.248). VIBE had slightly higher lesion conspicuity than GRASP for all lesions, with VIBE 12.6% (0.63/5.0) more conspicuous (P < 0.001). Masses and nonmass enhancement (NME) were more conspicuous on VIBE (P < 0.001), with a larger difference for NME (14.2% versus 9.4% more conspicuous). Malignant lesions were more conspicuous than benign lesions (P < 0.001) on both sequences. CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI, a multicoil compressed sensing technique with high spatial resolution and flexible temporal resolution, has near-comparable performance to conventional VIBE imaging for breast lesion evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016.

Appropriate imaging evaluation of nipple discharge depends the nature of the discharge. Imaging is not indicated for women with physiologic nipple discharge. For evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge, multiple breast imaging modalities are rated for evidence-based appropriateness under various scenarios. For women age 40 or older, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be the initial examination. Ultrasound is usually added as a complementary examination, with some exceptions. For women age 30 to 39, either mammogram or ultrasound may be used as the initial examination on the basis of institutional preference. For women age 30 or younger, ultrasound should be the initial examination, with mammography/DBT added when ultrasound shows suspicious findings or if the patient is predisposed to developing breast cancer. For men age 25 or older, mammography/DBT should be performed initially, with ultrasound added as indicated, given the high incidence of breast cancer in men with pathologic nipple discharge. Although MRI and ductography are not usually appropriate as initial examinations, each may be useful when the initial standard imaging evaluation is negative. 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.