58 research outputs found

    Microstructural breast tissue characterization: A head-to-head comparison of Diffusion Weighted Imaging and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse elastography with clinical implications

    Get PDF
    Abstract Purpose Head-to-head comparison of Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography regarding the characterization of breast lesions in an assessment setting. Method Patients undergoing an ultrasound examination including ARFI and an MRI protocol including DWI for the characterization of a BI-RADS 3–5 breast lesion between 06/2013 and 10/2016 were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective, IRB-approved study. 60 patients (30–84 years, median 50) with a median lesion size of 16 mm (range 5–55 mm) were included. The maximum shear wave velocity (SWVmax) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) for each lesion were retrospectively evaluated by a radiologist experienced in the technique. Histology was the reference standard. Diagnostic performances of ARFI and DWI were assessed using ROC curve analysis. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the independence of both tests regarding their diagnostic information to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Results Corresponding areas under the ROC curve for differentiation of benign (n = 16) and malignant (n = 49) lesions were 0.822 (ARFI) and 0.871 (DWI, p-value = 0.48). SWVmax and ADCmean values showed a significant negative correlation (ρ = −0.501, p-value Conclusion Significant correlation between quantitative findings of ARFI and DWI in breast lesions exists. Thus, ARFI provides similar diagnostic information as a DWI-including protocol of an additional "problem-solving" MRI for the characterization of a sonographically evident breast lesion, improving the immediate patient management in the assessment setting

    Axillary lymphadenopathy at the time of COVID-19 vaccination: ten recommendations from the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

    Get PDF
    Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a frequent mild side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) proposes ten recommendations to standardise its management and reduce unnecessary additional imaging and invasive procedures: (1) in patients with previous history of breast cancer, vaccination should be performed in the contralateral arm or in the thigh; (2) collect vaccination data for all patients referred to breast imaging services, including patients undergoing breast cancer staging and follow-up imaging examinations; (3) perform breast imaging examinations preferentially before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after the last vaccine dose; (4) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, apply standard imaging protocols regardless of vaccination status; (5) in any case of symptomatic or imaging-detected axillary lymphadenopathy before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after, examine with appropriate imaging the contralateral axilla and both breasts to exclude malignancy; (6) in case of axillary lymphadenopathy contralateral to the vaccination side, perform standard work-up; (7) in patients without breast cancer history and no suspicious breast imaging findings, lymphadenopathy only ipsilateral to the vaccination side within 12 weeks after vaccination can be considered benign or probably-benign, depending on clinical context; (8) in patients without breast cancer history, post-vaccination lymphadenopathy coupled with suspicious breast finding requires standard work-up, including biopsy when appropriate; (9) in patients with breast cancer history, interpret and manage post-vaccination lymphadenopathy considering the timeframe from vaccination and overall nodal metastatic risk; (10) complex or unclear cases should be managed by the multidisciplinary team

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

    Get PDF
    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

    TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

    Get PDF
    Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

    TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

    Get PDF
    Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.Rest of authors: Decky Junaedi, Robert R. Junker, Eric Justes, Richard Kabzems, Jeffrey Kane, Zdenek Kaplan, Teja Kattenborn, Lyudmila Kavelenova, Elizabeth Kearsley, Anne Kempel, Tanaka Kenzo, Andrew Kerkhoff, Mohammed I. Khalil, Nicole L. Kinlock, Wilm Daniel Kissling, Kaoru Kitajima, Thomas Kitzberger, Rasmus KjĂžller, Tamir Klein, Michael Kleyer, Jitka KlimeĆĄovĂĄ, Joice Klipel, Brian Kloeppel, Stefan Klotz, Johannes M. H. Knops, Takashi Kohyama, Fumito Koike, Johannes Kollmann, Benjamin Komac, Kimberly Komatsu, Christian König, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Koen Kramer, Holger Kreft, Ingolf KĂŒhn, Dushan Kumarathunge, Jonas Kuppler, Hiroko Kurokawa, Yoko Kurosawa, Shem Kuyah, Jean-Paul Laclau, Benoit Lafleur, Erik Lallai, Eric Lamb, Andrea Lamprecht, Daniel J. Larkin, Daniel Laughlin, Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Guerric le Maire, Peter C. le Roux, Elizabeth le Roux, Tali Lee, Frederic Lens, Simon L. Lewis, Barbara Lhotsky, Yuanzhi Li, Xine Li, Jeremy W. Lichstein, Mario Liebergesell, Jun Ying Lim, Yan-Shih Lin, Juan Carlos Linares, Chunjiang Liu, Daijun Liu, Udayangani Liu, Stuart Livingstone, Joan LlusiĂ , Madelon Lohbeck, Álvaro LĂłpez-GarcĂ­a, Gabriela Lopez-Gonzalez, Zdeƈka LososovĂĄ, FrĂ©dĂ©rique Louault, BalĂĄzs A. LukĂĄcs, Petr LukeĆĄ, Yunjian Luo, Michele Lussu, Siyan Ma, Camilla Maciel Rabelo Pereira, Michelle Mack, Vincent Maire, Annikki MĂ€kelĂ€, Harri MĂ€kinen, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, Azim Mallik, Peter Manning, Stefano Manzoni, Zuleica Marchetti, Luca Marchino, Vinicius Marcilio-Silva, Eric Marcon, Michela Marignani, Lars Markesteijn, Adam Martin, Cristina MartĂ­nez-Garza, Jordi MartĂ­nez-Vilalta, Tereza MaĆĄkovĂĄ, Kelly Mason, Norman Mason, Tara Joy Massad, Jacynthe Masse, Itay Mayrose, James McCarthy, M. Luke McCormack, Katherine McCulloh, Ian R. McFadden, Brian J. McGill, Mara Y. McPartland, Juliana S. Medeiros, Belinda Medlyn, Pierre Meerts, Zia Mehrabi, Patrick Meir, Felipe P. L. Melo, Maurizio Mencuccini, CĂ©line Meredieu, Julie Messier, Ilona MĂ©szĂĄros, Juha Metsaranta, Sean T. Michaletz, Chrysanthi Michelaki, Svetlana Migalina, Ruben Milla, Jesse E. D. Miller, Vanessa Minden, Ray Ming, Karel Mokany, Angela T. Moles, Attila MolnĂĄr V, Jane Molofsky, Martin Molz, Rebecca A. Montgomery, Arnaud Monty, Lenka MoravcovĂĄ, Alvaro Moreno-MartĂ­nez, Marco Moretti, Akira S. Mori, Shigeta Mori, Dave Morris, Jane Morrison, Ladislav Mucina, Sandra Mueller, Christopher D. Muir, Sandra Cristina MĂŒller, François Munoz, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Randall W. Myster, Masahiro Nagano, Shawna Naidu, Ayyappan Narayanan, Balachandran Natesan, Luka Negoita, Andrew S. Nelson, Eike Lena Neuschulz, Jian Ni, Georg Niedrist, Jhon Nieto, Ülo Niinemets, Rachael Nolan, Henning Nottebrock, Yann Nouvellon, Alexander Novakovskiy, The Nutrient Network, Kristin Odden Nystuen, Anthony O'Grady, Kevin O'Hara, Andrew O'Reilly-Nugent, Simon Oakley, Walter Oberhuber, Toshiyuki Ohtsuka, Ricardo Oliveira, Kinga Öllerer, Mark E. Olson, Vladimir Onipchenko, Yusuke Onoda, Renske E. Onstein, Jenny C. Ordonez, Noriyuki Osada, Ivika Ostonen, Gianluigi Ottaviani, Sarah Otto, Gerhard E. Overbeck, Wim A. Ozinga, Anna T. Pahl, C. E. Timothy Paine, Robin J. Pakeman, Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou, Evgeniya Parfionova, Meelis PĂ€rtel, Marco Patacca, Susana Paula, Juraj Paule, Harald Pauli, Juli G. Pausas, Begoña Peco, Josep Penuelas, Antonio Perea, Pablo Luis Peri, Ana Carolina Petisco-Souza, Alessandro Petraglia, Any Mary Petritan, Oliver L. Phillips, Simon Pierce, ValĂ©rio D. Pillar, Jan Pisek, Alexandr Pomogaybin, Hendrik Poorter, Angelika Portsmuth, Peter Poschlod, Catherine Potvin, Devon Pounds, A. Shafer Powell, Sally A. Power, Andreas Prinzing, Giacomo Puglielli, Petr PyĆĄek, Valerie Raevel, Anja Rammig, Johannes Ransijn, Courtenay A. Ray, Peter B. Reich, Markus Reichstein, Douglas E. B. Reid, Maxime RĂ©jou-MĂ©chain, Victor Resco de Dios, Sabina Ribeiro, Sarah Richardson, Kersti Riibak, Matthias C. Rillig, Fiamma Riviera, Elisabeth M. R. Robert, Scott Roberts, Bjorn Robroek, Adam Roddy, Arthur Vinicius Rodrigues, Alistair Rogers, Emily Rollinson, Victor Rolo, Christine Römermann, Dina Ronzhina, Christiane Roscher, Julieta A. Rosell, Milena Fermina Rosenfield, Christian Rossi, David B. Roy, Samuel Royer-Tardif, Nadja RĂŒger, Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado, Sabine B. Rumpf, Graciela M. Rusch, Masahiro Ryo, Lawren Sack, Angela Saldaña, Beatriz Salgado-Negret, Roberto Salguero-Gomez, Ignacio Santa-Regina, Ana Carolina Santacruz-GarcĂ­a, Joaquim Santos, Jordi Sardans, Brandon Schamp, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Matthias Schleuning, Bernhard Schmid, Marco Schmidt, Sylvain Schmitt, Julio V. Schneider, Simon D. Schowanek, Julian Schrader, Franziska Schrodt, Bernhard Schuldt, Frank Schurr, Galia Selaya Garvizu, Marina Semchenko, Colleen Seymour, Julia C. Sfair, Joanne M. Sharpe, Christine S. Sheppard, Serge Sheremetiev, Satomi Shiodera, Bill Shipley, Tanvir Ahmed Shovon, Alrun SiebenkĂ€s, Carlos Sierra, Vasco Silva, Mateus Silva, Tommaso Sitzia, Henrik Sjöman, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Darwin Sodhi, Pamela Soltis, Douglas Soltis, Ben Somers, GrĂ©gory Sonnier, Mia Vedel SĂžrensen, Enio Egon Sosinski Jr, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia, Alexandre F. Souza, Marko Spasojevic, Marta Gaia Sperandii, Amanda B. Stan, James Stegen, Klaus Steinbauer, Jörg G. Stephan, Frank Sterck, Dejan B. Stojanovic, Tanya Strydom, Maria Laura Suarez, Jens-Christian Svenning, Ivana SvitkovĂĄ, Marek Svitok, Miroslav Svoboda, Emily Swaine, Nathan Swenson, Marcelo Tabarelli, Kentaro Takagi, Ulrike Tappeiner, RubĂ©n Tarifa, Simon Tauugourdeau, Cagatay Tavsanoglu, Mariska te Beest, Leho Tedersoo, Nelson Thiffault, Dominik Thom, Evert Thomas, Ken Thompson, Peter E. Thornton, Wilfried Thuiller, LubomĂ­r TichĂœ, David Tissue, Mark G. Tjoelker, David Yue Phin Tng, Joseph Tobias, PĂ©ter Török, Tonantzin Tarin, JosĂ© M. Torres-Ruiz, BĂ©la TĂłthmĂ©rĂ©sz, Martina Treurnicht, Valeria Trivellone, Franck Trolliet, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, James L. Tsakalos, Ioannis Tsiripidis, Niklas Tysklind, Toru Umehara, Vladimir Usoltsev, Matthew Vadeboncoeur, Jamil Vaezi, Fernando Valladares, Jana Vamosi, Peter M. van Bodegom, Michiel van Breugel, Elisa Van Cleemput, Martine van de Weg, Stephni van der Merwe, Fons van der Plas, Masha T. van der Sande, Mark van Kleunen, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Mark Vanderwel, Kim AndrĂ© Vanselow, Angelica VĂ„rhammar, Laura Varone, Maribel Yesenia Vasquez Valderrama, Kiril Vassilev, Mark Vellend, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Verbeeck, Kris Verheyen, Alexander Vibrans, Ima Vieira, Jaime VillacĂ­s, Cyrille Violle, Pandi Vivek, Katrin Wagner, Matthew Waldram, Anthony Waldron, Anthony P. Walker, Martyn Waller, Gabriel Walther, Han Wang, Feng Wang, Weiqi Wang, Harry Watkins, James Watkins, Ulrich Weber, James T. Weedon, Liping Wei, Patrick Weigelt, Evan Weiher, Aidan W. Wells, Camilla Wellstein, Elizabeth Wenk, Mark Westoby, Alana Westwood, Philip John White, Mark Whitten, Mathew Williams, Daniel E. Winkler, Klaus Winter, Chevonne Womack, Ian J. Wright, S. Joseph Wright, Justin Wright, Bruno X. Pinho, Fabiano Ximenes, Toshihiro Yamada, Keiko Yamaji, Ruth Yanai, Nikolay Yankov, Benjamin Yguel, KĂĄtia Janaina Zanini, Amy E. Zanne, David ZelenĂœ, Yun-Peng Zhao, Jingming Zheng, Ji Zheng, Kasia ZiemiƄska, Chad R. Zirbel, Georg Zizka, IriĂ© Casimir Zo-Bi, Gerhard Zotz, Christian Wirth.Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry; Max Planck Society; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig; International Programme of Biodiversity Science (DIVERSITAS); International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); Future Earth; French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB); GIS ‘Climat, Environnement et SociĂ©tĂ©'.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcbhj2021Plant Production and Soil Scienc

    How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay

    No full text
    Abstract Due to its superior sensitivity, breast MRI (bMRI) has been established as an important additional diagnostic tool in the breast clinic and is used for screening in patients with an elevated risk for breast cancer. Breast MRI, however, is a complex tool, providing multiple images containing several contrasts. Thus, reading bMRI requires a structured approach. A lack of structure will increase the rate of false-positive findings and sacrifice most of the advantages of bMRI as additional work-up will be required. While the BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System) lexicon is a major step toward standardised and structured reporting, it does not provide a clinical decision rule with which to guide diagnostic decisions. Such a clinical decision rule, however, is provided by the Kaiser score, which combines five independent diagnostic BI-RADS lexicon criteria (margins, SI-time curve type, internal enhancement and presence of oedema) in an intuitive flowchart. The resulting score provides probabilities of malignancy that can be used for evidence-based decision-making in the breast clinic. Notably, considerable benefits have been demonstrated for radiologists with initial and intermediate experience in bMRI. This pictorial essay is a practical guide to the application of the Kaiser score in the interpretation of breast MRI examinations. Teaching Points ‱ bMRI requires standardisation of patient-management, protocols, and reading set-up. ‱ Reading bMRI includes the assessment of breast parenchyma, associated findings, and lesions. ‱ Diagnostic decisions should be made according to evidence-based clinical decision rules. ‱ The evidence-based Kaiser score is applicable independent of bMRI protocol and scanner. ‱ The Kaiser score provides high diagnostic accuracy with low inter-observer variability

    Der GynĂ€kologe / ZukĂŒnftige Entwicklungen in der Brustbildgebung

    No full text
    Bildgebung spielt eine zentrale Rolle in der SekundĂ€r- und TertiĂ€rprĂ€vention von Brustkrebs. Bildgebende Verfahren werden eingesetzt im Screening, zur AbklĂ€rung klinischer AuffĂ€lligkeiten oder im Screening detektierter Befunde und zur Therapieplanung anhand invasiver, bildgestĂŒtzter Biopsien sowie zur AbschĂ€tzung der Ausdehnung oder des Ansprechens auf neoadjuvante Therapien und fĂŒr prĂ€operative Clip- und Drahtmarkierungen. Auch in der Verlaufsbeobachtung nach abgeschlossener Brustkrebstherapie spielt die Bildgebung eine wesentliche Rolle. Die wichtigsten bildgebenden Verfahren sind nach wie vor Mammographie und Ultraschall. WĂ€hrend Letzterer an einer starken UntersucherabhĂ€ngigkeit leidet, ist die SensitivitĂ€t der Mammographie im Fall der röntgenologisch dichten Brust eingeschrĂ€nkt. Sowohl Mammographie als auch Ultraschall in ihrer Basisform bieten keine krankheitsspezifischen Informationen und erfordern so eine invasive AbklĂ€rung eines Großteils der auffĂ€lligen Befunde mit letztendlich benigner Diagnose. Aus diesem Grund besteht großes Interesse an der Weiterentwicklung bestehender Verfahren und an der Entwicklung neuer bildgebender Verfahren zur Reduktion falsch-positiver Befunde bei gleichzeitig möglichst verbesserter Tumordetektion. Der vorliegende Übersichtsartikel adressiert die relevantesten, bereits zur VerfĂŒgung stehenden Techniken und ihren potenziellen Nutzen in der Praxis.Imaging plays a central role in secondary and tertiary breast cancer prevention. Imaging procedures are used for screening, to clarify clinical abnormalities or findings detected in screening and to guide treatment by confirming the diagnosis by image-guided biopsy, by assessing disease extent, response to neoadjuvant treatment and preoperative clip and wire localization. Finally, imaging is used for follow-up examinations after breast cancer treatment. The most broadly applied imaging tests are mammography and ultrasound. While the latter suffers from interobserver variability, the sensitivity of mammography is reduced in women with radiologically dense breasts. In their basic forms mammography and ultrasound do not provide disease-specific information and therefore necessitate invasive clarification of the majority of conspicuous findings that ultimately yield benign diagnoses. Therefore, improvements of old and new imaging tests are developed and tested to reduce the number of false positive findings while also trying to improve breast cancer detection rates. The current review article addresses the most relevant and currently used techniques and their potential benefits in clinical practice.(VLID)358038

    New diagnostic tools for breast cancer

    No full text
    Imaging plays a major role in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of breast cancer. Findings that require further assessment will be detected both at screening and curative mammography. Most findings that are further worked up tend to yield benign diagnoses. Consequently, there is an ongoing search for new tools to reduce recalls and unnecessary biopsies while maintaining or improving cancer detection rates. The clinically most promising methods in this respect are described and discussed in this review.(VLID)363258
    • 

    corecore