Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women

Abstract: This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. Key Points: \u2022 Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. \u2022 Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). \u2022 A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. \u2022 Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. \u2022 Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation

Image processing improvements afford second-generation handheld optoacoustic imaging of breast cancer patients.

Background: Since the initial breast transillumination almost a century ago, breast cancer imaging using light has been considered in different implementations aiming to improve diagnostics, minimize the number of available biopsies, or monitor treatment. However, due to strong photon scattering, conventional optical imaging yields low resolution images, challenging quantification and interpretation. Optoacoustic imaging addresses the scattering limitation and yields high-resolution visualization of optical contrast, offering great potential value for breast cancer imaging. Nevertheless, the image quality of experimental systems remains limited due to a number of factors, including signal attenuation with depth and partial view angle and motion effects, particularly in multi-wavelength measurements. Methods: We developed data analytics methods to improve the accuracy of handheld optoacoustic breast cancer imaging, yielding second-generation optoacoustic imaging performance operating in tandem with ultrasonography. Results: We produced the most advanced images yet with handheld optoacoustic examinations of the human breast and breast cancer, in terms of resolution and contrast. Using these advances, we examined optoacoustic markers of malignancy, including vasculature abnormalities, hypoxia, and inflammation, on images obtained from breast cancer patients. Conclusions: We achieved a new level of quality for optoacoustic images from a handheld examination of the human breast, advancing the diagnostic and theranostic potential of the hybrid optoacoustic-ultrasound (OPUS) examination over routine ultrasonography

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

Correction to: Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions) (Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, (2019), 174, 2, (279-296), 10.1007/s10549-018-05071-1)

The article Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions), written by Christoph J Rageth, Elizabeth AM O\u2019Flynn, Katja Pinker, Rahel A Kubik-Huch, Alexander Mundinger, Thomas Decker, Christoph Tausch, Florian Dammann, Pascal A. Baltzer, Eva Maria Fallenberg, Maria P Foschini, Sophie Dellas, Michael Knauer, Caroline Malhaire, Martin Sonnenschein, Andreas Boos, Elisabeth Morris, Zsuzsanna Varga, was originally published electronically on the publisher\u2019s internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on November 30, 2018 without open access. With the author(s)\u2019 decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on May 30, 2019 to \ua9 The Author(s) 2018 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons.org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The original article has been corrected

Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions)

Purpose: The second International Consensus Conference on B3 lesions was held in Zurich, Switzerland, in March 2018, organized by the International Breast Ultrasound School to re-evaluate the consensus recommendations. Methods: This study (1) evaluated how management recommendations of the first Zurich Consensus Conference of 2016 on B3 lesions had influenced daily practice and (2) reviewed current literature towards recommendations to biopsy. Results: In 2018, the consensus recommendations for management of B3 lesions remained almost unchanged: For flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), papillary lesions (PL) and radial scars (RS) diagnosed on core-needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), excision by VAB in preference to open surgery, and for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and phyllodes tumors (PT) diagnosed at VAB or CNB, first-line open surgical excision (OE) with follow-up surveillance imaging for 5 years. Analyzing the Database of the Swiss Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsies (MIBB) with more than 30,000 procedures recorded, there was a significant increase in recommending more frequent surveillance of LN [65% in 2018 vs. 51% in 2016 (p = 0.004)], FEA (72% in 2018 vs. 62% in 2016 (p = 0.005)), and PL [(76% in 2018 vs. 70% in 2016 (p = 0.04)] diagnosed on VAB. A trend to more frequent surveillance was also noted also for RS [77% in 2018 vs. 67% in 2016 (p = 0.07)]. Conclusions: Minimally invasive management of B3 lesions (except ADH and PT) with VAB continues to be appropriate as an alternative to first-line OE in most cases, but with more frequent surveillance, especially for LN

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

Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)

Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. KEY POINTS: * The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript