Maimone, Santo

Abstract Breast image-guided procedures play a critical role in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer, serving as the gold standard for tissue sampling and preoperative localization. These minimally invasive procedures carry a very low risk of complications, with postprocedural infections occurring in fewer than 0.2% of cases. However, given the high volume of breast interventions performed annually, the potential impact of infections remains significant. Despite this, published guidelines addressing procedural cleanliness techniques in breast imaging are sparse and often provide conflicting recommendations, leading to variability in clinical practice and resource utilization. The lack of clear and specific guidance creates challenges for radiologists navigating institutional policies and best practice implementation. This review synthesizes existing standards and guidelines, evaluating the supporting evidence to propose an evidence-based best practice approach for maintaining clean techniques in breast image-guided procedures. By standardizing cleanliness protocols, we aim to enhance patient care, optimize procedural success, and promote consistency across breast imaging practices.

Abstract Objective Peri-implant enhancement can be seen on contrast-enhanced breast MRI, but its association with malignancy has not been described, leading to considerable variability in assessment and recommendations by radiologists. This study evaluated imaging features, management, and outcomes of implant-related enhancement. Methods This multisite IRB-approved retrospective review queried all breast MRI reports for keywords describing peri-implant enhancement, fluid, and/or masses (plus synonymous descriptions) and implant-associated malignancies, with subsequent imaging and chart review. Peri-implant enhancement and implant features were characterized. Assessments and outcomes were evaluated via clinical and imaging follow-up, aspiration/biopsy, and/or capsulectomy to evaluate for association of peri-implant enhancement with implant-related malignancy. Results A total of 100 patients had peri-implant enhancement. Uniform thin peripheral enhancement was most common (79/100, 79%). Capsulectomy was performed in 31/100 (31%), with benign capsular fibrosis/inflammation discovered in 26/31 (83.9%). Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma was present in 2/100 (2%), both with textured implants, while 98/100 (98%) had no implant-related malignancy. MRI recommendations varied: resume routine imaging (26/100, 26%), clinical management (18/100, 18%), follow-up MRI (17/100, 17%), MRI-directed US (17/100, 17%), aspiration/biopsy (11/100, 11%), and surgical consultation (10/100, 10%). Conclusion Peri-implant enhancement is a nonspecific imaging finding with a low malignant association, especially when seen in isolation (no associated effusion, mass, or adenopathy). Implant surface texture should be considered in management recommendations; diagnostic capsulectomy is not recommended in patients with smooth implants. Additional studies are encouraged to validate nonoperative management recommendations.

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study is to assess the “real-world” impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to detect breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening exams following 12 months of utilization in a subspecialized academic breast center. Methods Following IRB approval, mammography audit reports, as specified in the BI-RADS atlas, were retrospectively generated for five radiologists reading at three locations during a 12-month time frame. One location had the AI tool (iCAD ProFound AI v2.0), and the other two locations did not. The co-primary endpoints were cancer detection rate (CDR) and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer among screenings with abnormal interpretations (PPV1) and for biopsies performed (PPV3). Odds ratios (OR) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) summarized the impact of AI across radiologists using generalized estimating equations. Results Nonsignificant differences were observed in CDR, AIR, and PPVs. The CDR was 7.3 with AI and 5.9 without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9–1.7). The AIR was 11.7% with AI and 11.8% without AI (OR 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8–1.3). The PPV1 was 6.2% with AI and 5.0% without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.97–1.7). The PPV3 was 33.3% with AI and 32.0% without AI (OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8–1.5). Conclusion Although we are unable to show statistically significant changes in CDR and AIR outcomes in the two groups, the results are consistent with prior reader studies. There is a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in CDR with AI, without significant increases in AIR.

Abstract Objective Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. Methods Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. Results From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34–86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct post-consultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. Conclusion A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care.

Abstract Objective Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a supplemental screening modality consistently demonstrating incremental cancer detection over mammography alone; however, its lengthy duration may limit widespread utilization. The study purpose was to assess feasibility of an abbreviated MBI protocol, providing readers with mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections only and assessing performance in lesion detection and localization. Methods Retrospective IRB-exempt blinded reader study administered to 5 fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologists. Independent reads performed for 124 screening MBI cases, half abnormal and half negative/normal. Readers determined whether an abnormality was present, side of abnormality, and location of abnormality (medial/lateral). Abnormal cases had confirmatory biopsy or surgical pathology; normal cases had imaging follow-up ensuring true negative results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess performance. A false negative result indicated that a reader failed to detect abnormal uptake; a false positive result indicated a reader incorrectly called an abnormality for a negative case. Tests for association included chi-square, Fisher-exact, and analysis of variance. Results Mean reader performance for detecting abnormal uptake: sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 98.7%, PPV 98.8%, and NPV 96.9%. Accuracy in localizing lesions to the medial or lateral breast was 100%. There were no associations in reader performance with reader experience, reader technique, lesion morphology, or lesion pathology. Median lesion size was 1.0 cm (range: 0.4–8.0 cm). All readers correctly identified 97.7% (42/43) of lesions with malignant or elevated risk pathology. Conclusion An abbreviated MBI protocol (MLO images only) maintained high accuracy in lesion detection and localization.

Abstract Objective Image-guided breast biopsies are safe, efficient, and reliable. However, patients are often anxious about these procedures, particularly those who have never undergone a prior biopsy. Methods This prospective IRB-approved study surveyed 163 patients undergoing their first breast biopsy. Participants provided informed consent and completed a short written survey prior to and immediately after their procedure. Level of anxiety as well as anticipated and actual levels of pain prior to and following the procedure were assessed using a 0–10-point Likert scale. Correlation, bivariate, and regression analyses were performed. Results Regarding the biopsy experience, 133/163 (81.6%) of patients reported it as better than expected. Anxiety decreased significantly from a prebiopsy mean score of 5.52 to a postbiopsy mean score of 2.25 (P < 0.001). Average and greatest pain experienced during the procedure had mean scores of 2.03 and 2.77, respectively, both significantly lower compared to preprocedural expectation (mean 4.53) (P < 0.001). Lower pain scores were reported in US-guided procedures compared to stereotactic- and MRI-guided biopsies (P < 0.001). No significant differences in pain scores were seen in those undergoing single versus multiple biopsies, or when benign, elevated-risk, or malignant lesions were sampled. Positive correlations were seen with prebiopsy anxiety levels and procedural pain as well as with anticipated pain and actual procedural pain. Conclusion Image-guided biopsies are often better tolerated by patients than anticipated. We stress the benefit of conveying this information to patients prior to biopsy, as decreased anxiety correlates with lower levels of pain experienced during the procedure.

Abstract Objective Parenchymal breast cysts are considered to be rare in men and are sparsely described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to review our institution’s experience with male breast cysts in an effort to improve overall understanding and management of this rare entity. Methods An institutional review board–exempt retrospective study was performed. Radiology reports for males who underwent mammogram and/or breast ultrasound at any of our institution’s primary or satellite locations from January 1995 to January 2020 were screened to find males with breast cysts. If cysts were reported and images were available, case review was performed to confirm parenchymal breast cyst(s) and patient characteristics were collated. Results Of 5425 male cases presenting for breast imaging, 19 (0.4%) cases of male breast cysts were confirmed, with a mean patient age of 41.6 years (range: 2–81 years). The most common indication leading to cyst discovery was a palpable lump, corresponding to the site of the cyst in 5 (26.3%) patients and near the site where cyst(s) were ultimately discovered in 7 (36.8%) patients. There were 8 (42.1%) instances of cysts without concurrent gynecomastia. Three (15.8%) men underwent needle sampling. There were no cases of atypia or malignancy on needle biopsy or on subsequent clinical follow-up, with median clinical follow-up of 70.3 months (range: 3.3–259.4 months). Conclusion Male breast parenchymal cysts are rare, but their prevalence is likely underestimated. If detected incidentally or upon targeted evaluation, biopsy may be averted if classic benign cyst features are identified.