Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information.

UNLABELLED: This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. KEY POINTS: • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3807-

Management of Patients with Breast Biopsy under Anti-Coagulation or Anti-Platelet 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

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study

Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone. Methods One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale. Results The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases. Conclusions Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions

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

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

Echocardiographic diagnosis, management and monitoring of pulmonary embolism with right heart thrombus in a patient with myotonic dystrophy: a case report

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease which frequently results in life-threatening right ventricular (RV) failure. High-risk PE, presenting with hypotension, shock, RV dysfunction or right heart thrombus is associated with a high mortality, particularly during the first few hours. Accordingly, it is important to commence effective therapy as soon as possible. In the case described in this report, a 49-year-old woman with myotonic dystrophy type 1 presented with acute respiratory failure and hypotension. Transthoracic echocardiography showed signs of right heart failure and a mobile right heart mass highly suspicious of a thrombus. Based on echocardiographic findings, acute thrombolysis was performed resulting in hemodynamic stabilization of the patient and complete resolution of the right heart thrombus. This case underscores the important role of transthoracic echocardiography for the diagnosis, management and monitoring of PE and underlines the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis in the treatment of PE associated with right heart thrombus

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

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

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2023

Background: Each year the interdisciplinary Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO), German Gynecological Oncology Group Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer. Summary: The updated evidence-based treatment recommendation for early and metastatic breast cancer has been released in March 2023. Key Messages: This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter

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

The heterogeneous group of B3 lesions in the breast harbors lesions with different malignant potential and progression risk. As several studies about B3 lesions have been published since the last Consensus in 2018, the 3rd International Consensus Conference discussed the six most relevant B3 lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), radial scar (RS), papillary lesions (PL) without atypia, and phyllodes tumors (PT)) and made recommendations for diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Following a presentation of current data of each B3 lesion, the international and interdisciplinary panel of 33 specialists and key opinion leaders voted on the recommendations for further management after core-needle biopsy (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). In case of B3 lesion diagnosis on CNB, OE was recommended in ADH and PT, whereas in the other B3 lesions, vacuum-assisted excision was considered an equivalent alternative to OE. In ADH, most panelists (76%) recommended an open excision (OE) after diagnosis on VAB, whereas observation after a complete VAB-removal on imaging was accepted by 34%. In LN, the majority of the panel (90%) preferred observation following complete VAB-removal. Results were similar in RS (82%), PL (100%), and FEA (100%). In benign PT, a slim majority (55%) also recommended an observation after a complete VAB-removal. VAB with subsequent active surveillance can replace an open surgical intervention for most B3 lesions (RS, FEA, PL, PT, and LN). Compared to previous recommendations, there is an increasing trend to a de-escalating strategy in classical LN. Due to the higher risk of upgrade into malignancy, OE remains the preferred approach after the diagnosis of ADH

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Abstract This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method