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

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

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

Image quality of DWI at breast MRI depends on the amount of fibroglandular tissue: implications for unenhanced screening

Objectives: To compare image quality of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-T1) stratified by the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) as a measure of breast density. Methods: Retrospective, multi-reader, bicentric visual grading analysis study on breast density (A–D) and overall image and fat suppression quality of DWI and DCE-T1, scored on a standard 5-point Likert scale. Cross tabulations and visual grading characteristic (VGC) curves were calculated for fatty breasts (A/B) versus dense breasts (C/D). Results: Image quality of DWI was higher in the case of increased breast density, with good scores (score 3–5) in 85.9% (D) and 88.4% (C), compared to 61.6% (B) and 53.5% (A). Overall image quality of DWI was in favor of dense breasts (C/D), with an area under the VGC curve of 0.659 (p < 0.001). Quality of DWI and DCE-T1 fat suppression increased with higher breast density, with good scores (score 3–5) for 86.9% and 45.7% of density D, and 90.2% and 42.9% of density C cases, compared to 76.0% and 33.6% for density B and 54.7% and 29.6% for density A (DWI and DCE-T1 respectively). Conclusions: Dense breasts show excellent fat suppression and substantially higher image quality in DWI images compared with non-dense breasts. These results support the setup of studies exploring DWI-based MR imaging without IV contrast for additional screening of women with dense breasts. Clinical relevance statement: Our findings demonstrate that image quality of DWI is robust in women with an increased amount of fibroglandular tissue, technically supporting the feasibility of exploring applications such as screening of women with mammographically dense breasts. Key Points: • Image and fat suppression quality of diffusion-weighted imaging are dependent on the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) which is closely connected to breast density. • Fat suppression quality in diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast is best in women with a high amount of fibroglandular tissue. • High image quality of diffusion-weighted imaging in women with a high amount of FGT in MRI supports that the technical feasibility of DWI can be explored in the additional screening of women with mammographically dense breasts. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

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

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

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

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

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

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 Kjøller, Tamir Klein, Michael Kleyer, Jitka Klimešová, 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 Kühn, 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 Llusià, Madelon Lohbeck, Álvaro López-García, Gabriela Lopez-Gonzalez, Zdeňka Lososová, Frédérique Louault, Balázs A. Lukács, Petr Lukeš, Yunjian Luo, Michele Lussu, Siyan Ma, Camilla Maciel Rabelo Pereira, Michelle Mack, Vincent Maire, Annikki Mäkelä, Harri Mäkinen, 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 Martínez-Garza, Jordi Martínez-Vilalta, Tereza Mašková, 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, Céline Meredieu, Julie Messier, Ilona Mészáros, 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 Molnár V, Jane Molofsky, Martin Molz, Rebecca A. Montgomery, Arnaud Monty, Lenka Moravcová, Alvaro Moreno-Martínez, Marco Moretti, Akira S. Mori, Shigeta Mori, Dave Morris, Jane Morrison, Ladislav Mucina, Sandra Mueller, Christopher D. Muir, Sandra Cristina Müller, 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 Pärtel, 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, Valério 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 Pyšek, Valerie Raevel, Anja Rammig, Johannes Ransijn, Courtenay A. Ray, Peter B. Reich, Markus Reichstein, Douglas E. B. Reid, Maxime Réjou-Méchain, 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 Rüger, 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-García, 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 Siebenkäs, Carlos Sierra, Vasco Silva, Mateus Silva, Tommaso Sitzia, Henrik Sjöman, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Darwin Sodhi, Pamela Soltis, Douglas Soltis, Ben Somers, Grégory Sonnier, Mia Vedel Sørensen, 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 Svitková, Marek Svitok, Miroslav Svoboda, Emily Swaine, Nathan Swenson, Marcelo Tabarelli, Kentaro Takagi, Ulrike Tappeiner, Rubén Tarifa, Simon Tauugourdeau, Cagatay Tavsanoglu, Mariska te Beest, Leho Tedersoo, Nelson Thiffault, Dominik Thom, Evert Thomas, Ken Thompson, Peter E. Thornton, Wilfried Thuiller, Lubomír Tichý, David Tissue, Mark G. Tjoelker, David Yue Phin Tng, Joseph Tobias, Péter Török, Tonantzin Tarin, José M. Torres-Ruiz, Béla Tóthmérész, 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 André Vanselow, Angelica Vårhammar, Laura Varone, Maribel Yesenia Vasquez Valderrama, Kiril Vassilev, Mark Vellend, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Verbeeck, Kris Verheyen, Alexander Vibrans, Ima Vieira, Jaime Villacís, 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, Kátia Janaina Zanini, Amy E. Zanne, David Zelený, Yun-Peng Zhao, Jingming Zheng, Ji Zheng, Kasia Ziemińska, Chad R. Zirbel, Georg Zizka, Irié 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 Société'.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcbhj2021Plant Production and Soil Scienc