Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Abstract: We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as “high-risk” or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study. One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology. Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI. This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG. • CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts

Supplementary Material for: Management of Patients with Breast Biopsy under Anticoagulation or Antiplatelet Therapy: Results of a Survey of German Experts

Introduction Pre-therapeutic histologic diagnosis through image-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) for suspicious breast findings is a standard procedure. Despite the moderate risk of bleeding, a significant proportion of patients are on temporary or permanent anti-coagulation therapy (ACT) or anti-platelet therapy (APT). Currently, there are no established guidelines for managing biopsies in such patients, leading to varying approaches in clinical practice. Methods An online survey was conducted among all members of the breast ultrasound working group at the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) and the working group for breast diagnostics at the German Radiology Society (DRG). It included n=51 questions about individual risk perception of biopsy-related bleeding complications and the specific management of biopsies on ACT/APT. Results A total of 332 experts participated, with 51.8% reporting the absence of a standardized management plan for breast biopsies on ACT/APT. Concerning specific ACT/APT medications, the survey revealed discrepancies in risk perception and management: The majority preferred discontinuing medication with directly acting oral anti-coagulants (DOACs; CNB: 66.9%; VAB: 91.1%), phenprocoumon (CNB: 74.9%; VAB: 96.7%), or therapeutic heparin (CNB: 46.1%; VAB: 72.7%). However, there was a lower inclination to discontinue acetylsalicylic acid (ASA; CNB: 15.2%; VAB: 50.3%) or prophylactic heparin (CNB: 11.9%, VAB: 36.3%). Conclusion Breast biopsies for patients on ASA or prophylactic heparin are deemed safe and part of standard clinical practice. However, despite available feasibility studies, conducting breast biopsies on ACT medications such as DOACs or phenprocoumon appears feasible only for a minority of experts