Management of atypical lobular hyperplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and lobular carcinoma in situ.

Atypical hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ are rare proliferative breast lesions, growing inside ducts and terminal ducto-lobular units. They represent a marker of increased risk for breast cancer and a non-obligate precursor of malignancy. Evidence available on diagnosis and management is scarce. They are frequently found incidentally associated with other lesions, but can be visible through mammography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance. Due to the risk of underestimation, surgical excision is often performed. The analysis of imaging and histopathological characteristics could help identifying low-risk cases, for which surgery is not necessary. Chemopreventive agents can be used for risk reduction. Careful imaging follow up is mandatory; the role of breast MRI as screening modality is under discussio

Density and tailored breast cancer screening: practice and prediction an overview

Mammography, as the primary screening modality, has facilitated a substantial decrease in breast cancer-related mortality in the general population. However, the sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection is decreased in women with higher breast densities, which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. With increasing public awareness of the implications of a high breast density, there is an increasing demand for supplemental screening in these patients. Yet, improvements in breast cancer detection with supplemental screening methods come at the expense of increased false-positives, recall rates, patient anxiety, and costs. Therefore, breast cancer screening practice must change from a general one-size-fits-all approach to a more personalized, risk-based one that is tailored to the individual womans risk, personal beliefs, and preferences, while accounting for cost, potential harm, and benefits. This overview will provide an overview of the available breast density assessment modalities, the current breast density screening recommendations for women at average risk of breast cancer, and supplemental methods for breast cancer screening. In addition, we will provide a look at the possibilities for a risk-adapted breast cancer screening.(VLID)479970

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Breast lesion detection and characterization with contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Prospective randomized intraindividual comparison of gadoterate meglumine (0.15 mmol/kg) and gadobenate dimeglumine (0.075 mmol/kg) at 3T

Background Contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for breast cancer detection. Multichannel coils and 3T scanners can increase signal, spatial, and temporal resolution. In addition, the T1reduction effect of a gadoliniumbased contrast agent (GBCA) is higher at 3T. Thus, it might be possible to reduce the dose of GBCA at 3T without losing diagnostic information. Purpose To compare a threequarter (0.075 mmol/kg) dose of the highrelaxivity GBCA gadobenate dimeglumine, with a 1.5fold higher than onlabel dose (0.15 mmol/kg) of gadoterate meglumine for breast lesion detection and characterization at 3T CEMRI. Study Type Prospective, randomized, intraindividual comparative study. Population Eligible were patients with imaging abnormalities (BIRADS 0, 4, 5) on conventional imaging. Each patient underwent two examinations, 2472 hours apart, one with 0.075 mmol/kg gadobenate and the other with 0.15 mmol/kg gadoterate administered in a randomized order. In all, 109 patients were prospectively recruited. Field Strength/Sequence 3T MRI with a standard breast protocol (dynamicCE, T2wTSE, STIRT2w, DWI). Assessment Histopathology was the standard of reference. Three blinded, offsite breast radiologists evaluated the examinations using the BIRADS lexicon. Statistical Tests Lesion detection, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated perlesion and perregion, and compared by univariate and multivariate analysis (Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE). Results Five patients were excluded, leaving 104 women with 142 histologically verified breast lesions (109 malignant, 33 benign) available for evaluation. Lesion detection with gadobenate (84.588.7%) was not inferior to gadoterate (84.590.8%) (P 0.165). At perregion analysis, gadobenate demonstrated higher specificity (96.498.7% vs. 92.697.3%, P 0.007) and accuracy (96.397.8% vs. 93.696.1%, P 0.001) compared with gadoterate. Multivariate analysis demonstrated superior, readerindependent diagnostic accuracy with gadobenate (odds ratio = 1.7, P < 0.001 using GEE). Data Conclusion A 0.075 mmol/kg dose of the highrelaxivity contrast agent gadobenate was not inferior to a 0.15 mmol/kg dose of gadoterate for breast lesion detection. Gadobenate allowed increased specificity and accuracy. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2(VLID)489516

A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on radiologists’ preferences regarding quality assurance measures of image interpretation in screening and diagnostic mammography

Objectives: Quality assurance (QA) of image interpretation plays a key role in screening and diagnostic mammography, maintaining minimum standards and supporting continuous improvement in interpreting images. However, the QA structure across Europe shows considerable variation. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) conducted a survey among the members to collect information on radiologists’ preferences regarding QA measures in mammography. Materials and methods: An anonymous online survey consisting of 25 questions was distributed to all EUSOBI members and national breast radiology bodies in Europe. The questions were designed to collect demographic characteristics, information on responders’ mammography workload and data about QA measures currently used in their country. Data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis, the χ 2 test, linear regression, and Durbin-Watson statistic test. Results: In total, 251 breast radiologists from 34 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were providing both screening and symptomatic services (137/251, 54.6%), working in an academic hospital (85/251, 33.9%) and reading 1000–4999 cases per year (109/251, 43.4%). More than half of them (133/251, 53%) had established QA measures in their workplace. Although less than one-third (71/251, 28.3%) had to participate in regular performance testing, the vast majority (190/251, 75.7%) agreed that a mandatory test would be helpful to improve their skills. Conclusion: QA measures were in place for more than half of the respondents working in screening and diagnostic mammography to evaluate their breast imaging performance. Although there were substantial differences between countries, the importance of having QA in the workplace and implemented was widely acknowledged by radiologists. Clinical relevance statement: Although several quality assurance (QA) measures of image interpretation are recommended by European bodies or national organisations, the QA in mammography is quite heterogenous between countries and reporting settings, and not always actively implemented across Europe. Key Points: The first survey that presents radiologists’ preferences regarding QA measures of image interpretation in mammography. Quality assurance measures in the workplace are better-established for breast screening compared to diagnostic mammography. Radiologists consider that performance tests would help to improve their mammography interpretation skills

A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on radiologists’ preferences regarding quality assurance measures of image interpretation in screening and diagnostic mammography

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank all the breast imaging readers who took the time to answer the survey.Objectives: Quality assurance (QA) of image interpretation plays a key role in screening and diagnostic mammography, maintaining minimum standards and supporting continuous improvement in interpreting images. However, the QA structure across Europe shows considerable variation. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) conducted a survey among the members to collect information on radiologists’ preferences regarding QA measures in mammography. Materials and methods: An anonymous online survey consisting of 25 questions was distributed to all EUSOBI members and national breast radiology bodies in Europe. The questions were designed to collect demographic characteristics, information on responders’ mammography workload and data about QA measures currently used in their country. Data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis, the χ2 test, linear regression, and Durbin-Watson statistic test. Results: In total, 251 breast radiologists from 34 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were providing both screening and symptomatic services (137/251, 54.6%), working in an academic hospital (85/251, 33.9%) and reading 1000–4999 cases per year (109/251, 43.4%). More than half of them (133/251, 53%) had established QA measures in their workplace. Although less than one-third (71/251, 28.3%) had to participate in regular performance testing, the vast majority (190/251, 75.7%) agreed that a mandatory test would be helpful to improve their skills. Conclusion: QA measures were in place for more than half of the respondents working in screening and diagnostic mammography to evaluate their breast imaging performance. Although there were substantial differences between countries, the importance of having QA in the workplace and implemented was widely acknowledged by radiologists. Clinical relevance statement: Although several quality assurance (QA) measures of image interpretation are recommended by European bodies or national organisations, the QA in mammography is quite heterogenous between countries and reporting settings, and not always actively implemented across Europe. Key Points: The first survey that presents radiologists’ preferences regarding QA measures of image interpretation in mammography. Quality assurance measures in the workplace are better-established for breast screening compared to diagnostic mammography. Radiologists consider that performance tests would help to improve their mammography interpretation skills

European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) guidelines on the management of axillary lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination : 2023 revision

Axillary lymphadenopathy is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, leading to increased imaging-detected asymptomatic and symptomatic unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. This has threatened to negatively impact the workflow of breast imaging services, leading to the release of ten recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in August 2021. Considering the rapidly changing scenario and data scarcity, these initial recommendations kept a highly conservative approach. As of 2023, according to newly acquired evidence, EUSOBI proposes the following updates, in order to reduce unnecessary examinations and avoid delaying necessary examinations. First, recommendation n. 3 has been revised to state that breast examinations should not be delayed or rescheduled because of COVID-19 vaccination, as evidence from the first pandemic waves highlights how delayed or missed screening tests have a negative effect on breast cancer morbidity and mortality, and that there is a near-zero risk of subsequent malignant findings in asymptomatic patients who have unilateral lymphadenopathy and no suspicious breast findings. Second, recommendation n. 7 has been revised to simplify follow-up strategies: in patients without breast cancer history and no imaging findings suspicious for cancer, symptomatic and asymptomatic imaging-detected unilateral lymphadenopathy on the same side of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 12 weeks) should be classified as a benign finding (BI-RADS 2) and no further work-up should be pursued. All other recommendations issued by EUSOBI in 2021 remain valid

TRY plant trait database, enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits-the morphological, ahawnatomical, 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