Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS:Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods. RESULTS:In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Data on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS:Retrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05). RESULTS:Data from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42). CONCLUSIONS:In the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.

Though consistently shown to detect mammographically occult cancers, breast ultrasound has been noted to have high false-positive rates. In this work, we present an AI system that achieves radiologist-level accuracy in identifying breast cancer in ultrasound images. Developed on 288,767 exams, consisting of 5,442,907 B-mode and Color Doppler images, the AI achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.976 on a test set consisting of 44,755 exams. In a retrospective reader study, the AI achieves a higher AUROC than the average of ten board-certified breast radiologists (AUROC: 0.962 AI, 0.924 ± 0.02 radiologists). With the help of the AI, radiologists decrease their false positive rates by 37.3% and reduce requested biopsies by 27.8%, while maintaining the same level of sensitivity. This highlights the potential of AI in improving the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of breast ultrasound diagnosis.

Physicians, including radiologists and specifically breast imagers, face many challenges, and stressors during their daily routine, many of which can contribute to burnout. While there is an increasing body of literature evaluating burnout, including its prevalence in and impact on radiologists, there is a relative lack of information specifically addressing this topic as it relates to breast imaging. This article reviews key concepts in burnout, describes the potential impact on physicians at all levels of training and work, highlights unique aspects to the specialty of breast imaging that may contribute to burnout, and suggests tool and/or strategies that may help to combat and prevent burnout among breast imagers.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ^©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 (BR3) (probably benign) mammographic assessments are reserved for imaging findings known to have likelihood of malignancy of 2% or less. Purpose To determine the effect of age, finding type, and prior mammography on cancer yield for BR3 findings in the National Mammography Database (NMD). Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective cohort institutional review board-exempt study evaluated women recalled from screening mammography followed by BR3 assessment at diagnostic evaluation from January 2009 to March 2018 and from 471 NMD facilities. Only the first BR3 occurrence was included for women with biopsy or imaging follow-up of at least 2 years. Women with a history of breast cancer or who underwent biopsy at time of initial BR3 assessment were excluded. Women were stratified by age in 10-year intervals. Cancer yield was calculated for each age group, with (for presumed new findings) and without prior mammographic comparison, and by lesion type, where available. Linear regression with weighted-age binning was performed to assess for differences between groups; P < .05 was indicative of a significant difference. Results A total of 1 380 652 (18.2%) women were recalled after screening mammography, of whom 157 130 (11.4%) were given a BR3 assessment within 90 days after screening. Of these, 43 628 women (median age, 55 years; age range, 25-90 years) had adequate follow-up for analysis. Cancer yield increased with increasing age decile, ranging from 0.51% (six of 1167) in women aged 30-39 years to 4.63% (41 of 885) in women aged 80-90 years; cancer yield exceeded 2% at and after age 59.7 years for baseline findings and at and after age 53.6 years for presumed new findings, although there was no effect on stage distribution. Cancer yield for baseline BR3 masses was 10 of 2111 (0.47% [95% CI: 0.24, 0.90]) versus 47 of 3003 (1.57% [95% CI: 1.16, 2.09]) with prior comparisons (P < .001); cancer yield for baseline calcifications was eight of 929 (0.86% [95% CI: 0.40, 1.76]) versus 84 of 2999 (2.80% [95% CI: 2.23, 3.47]) with prior comparisons (P < .001). Difference in cancer yield was 0.51% (95% CI: 0.16, 0.86) between women with and women without prior comparison at the same age (P = .006). Conclusion Cancer yield exceeded the 2% threshold for women aged 60 years or older and reached 4.6% for women aged 80-89 years. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 findings in women with a prior comparison had higher cancer yield than in those without a prior comparison at the same age. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) account for approximately 10%-40% of the lymphatic drainage of the breast. Internal mammary lymph nodes measuring up to 10 mm are commonly seen on high-risk screening breast MRI examinations in patients without breast cancer and are considered benign if no other suspicious findings are present. Benign IMLNs demonstrate a fatty hilum, lobular or oval shape, and circumscribed margins without evidence of central necrosis, cortical thickening, or loss of fatty hilum. In patients with breast cancer, IMLN involvement can alter clinical stage and treatment planning. The incidence of IMLN metastases detected on US, CT, MRI, and PET-CT ranges from 10%-16%, with MRI and PET-CT demonstrating the highest sensitivities. Although there are no well-defined imaging criteria in the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual for Breast Cancer, a long-axis measurement of ≥ 5 mm is suggested as a guideline to differentiate benign versus malignant IMLNs in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Abnormal morphology such as loss of fatty hilum, irregular shape, and rounded appearance (which can be quantified by a short-axis/long-axis length ratio greater than 0.5) also raises suspicion for IMLN metastases. MRI and PET-CT have good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of IMLN metastases, but fluorodeoxyglucose avidity can be seen in both benign conditions and metastatic disease. US is helpful for staging, and US-guided fine-needle aspiration can be performed in cases of suspected IMLN metastasis. Management of suspicious IMLNs identified on imaging is typically with chemotherapy and radiation, as surgical excision does not provide survival benefit and is performed only in rare cases.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To understand the status of pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations at radiology residency training institutions in various Asian regions. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A questionnaire based on the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards was electronically sent to 3 institutions each in 10 geographical regions across 9 Asian countries. Questions addressing 45 practices were divided into 3 categories. A five-tier scale with numerical scores was used to evaluate safety practices in each institution. Responses obtained from three institutions in the United States were used to validate the execution rate of each surveyed safety practice. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The institutional response rate was 70.0% (7 Asian regions, 21 institutions). 44 practices (all those surveyed except for the application of wrist tags for identifying patients with fall risks) were validated using the US participants. Overall, the Asian participants reached a consensus on 89% of the safety practices. Comparatively, most Asian participants did not routinely perform three pre-procedural practices in the examination appropriateness topic. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Based on the responses from 21 participating Asian institutions, most routinely perform standard practices during radiological examinations except when it comes to examination appropriateness. This study can provide direction for safety policymakers scrutinizing and improving regional standards of care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE/UNASSIGNED:This is the first multicenter survey study to elucidate pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations in seven Asian regions.