Egbert, Lena

e12749 Background: Breast cancer (BC) survivors are at higher risk for recurrence or new primary disease and often require complex surveillance imaging. Use of contrast enhanced surveillance imaging modalities with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has increased in recent years. This study evaluates characteristics of those BC survivors who receive contrast enhanced imaging and whether the addition of contrast enhanced imaging affects biopsy outcomes in BC survivors. Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review identified female BC survivors who underwent breast surgery and subsequent surveillance imaging at a single academic center between 2016 and 2025. Surveillance episodes were categorized as mammography alone versus mammography with addition of CEM and/or MRI. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to compare patient and tumor characteristics associated with enhanced imaging modality use. Similarly rates of biopsy and cancer were evaluated with enhanced imaging use. Results: A total of 4,050 surveillance imaging episodes in 861 patients were identified and 54 resulted in biopsy-proven malignancy. Mammography alone was performed in 3,459 episodes, while enhanced imaging with CEM or MRI was used in 591 (14.6%) episodes. Use of CEM or MRI for surveillance imaging increased over time. In 2016, surveillance imaging consisted predominantly of mammography alone (93.3%) with 6.6% incorporating MRI or CEM. By 2025, mammography only surveillance decreased to 78.4% while use of MRI or CEM increased to 21.6%. Use of contrast enhanced imaging was associated with higher incidence rate ratios (IRR) for dense breast tissue [IRR 2.33; 95% CI 1.92, 2.82), p < 0.001] and less frequently used among patients aged 65–79 years [IRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49, 0.74; p < 0.0001] and > = 80 years of age [IRR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24, 0.66; p < 0.001]. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (IRR 3.09, p = 0.0061), and immunotherapy use (IRR 2.56, p = 0.0006) also were associated with increased use of CEM/MRI enhanced imaging. Biopsies were performed in 146 (4.2%) mammography alone episodes and 55 (9.3%) enhanced imaging episodes [IRR 2.20; 95% CI 1.63, 2.96; p < 0.001]. Surveillance with mammography yielded malignant biopsy results in 39 (1.1%) episodes, compared with 15 (2.5%) episodes using enhanced imaging [IRR 2.25; 95% CI 1.25, 4.06; p = 0.007). Conclusions: In breast cancer surveillance at our institution, the addition of contrast enhanced imaging modalities were utilized in a minority of surveillance episodes but did increase over time and were higher in patients with dense breasts. CEM or MRI usage demonstrated higher biopsy rates and increased malignancy detection compared with mammography alone, but the incidence of a positive biopsy was low. These findings suggest and are in keeping with 2023 ACR guidelines that enhanced imaging may improve cancer detection in select breast cancer survivors.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.