Lee, Christine U.

AbstractThere are very few true breast emergencies. While infrequent, women do present to emergency departments or urgent care centres with breast‐related concerns. In this case‐based review, both common and uncommon urgent and emergent breast lesions are presented, emphasising ultrasound characteristics and imaging optimisation to improve accurate diagnosis and appropriate recommendations.

Abstract Buffered lidocaine is a local anesthetic option during percutaneous needle-directed procedures in the breast. At our institution, sodium bicarbonate (the buffer) is dispensed in volumes that frequently lead to medical waste and shortages. In this study, we describe how moving the buffering of lidocaine from the procedure room to our clinical hospital pharmacy results in a reduction in costs and improves satisfaction across the breast radiology department. While cost savings are difficult to tease out in practices that opt for bundled payments, we were able to access pricing and supply data and coordinate with our pharmacy to change our practice. Making these changes saves our practice $26 000 a year and allows us to continue to offer buffered lidocaine even during sodium bicarbonate shortages. This manuscript describes how these changes came about and their economic impact.

Ultrasound‐guided breast biopsies can be challenging to perform, especially when the target is adjacent to the nipple, skin, or implant or when the target is small and in very posterior, dense fibroglandular tissue. Oftentimes, a slightly modified approach can result in a diagnostic biopsy specimen with minimal complications. After a brief review of basic techniques for ultrasound‐guided breast biopsies that includes a review of conventional breast biopsy devices, a presentation of procedural modifications and techniques to consider for more challenging cases is described. In particular, novel open‐trough and tandem‐needle techniques are detailed. Several cases using these techniques are then presented.

Summary:Most magnetic resonance lymphangiography techniques employ intravenous gadolinium-based contrast agents, which carry a US Food and Drug Administration warning about gadolinium retention in the body when used intravenously. Because of this, there may be reluctance to perform intradermal injections of gadolinium-based contrast agents in patients with obstructed lymphatic drainage due to concerns about gadolinium retention in the skin and soft tissues and potential-related toxicity. The aim of this study was to show proof of concept of 2 preoperative lymphangiographic techniques that do not use gadolinium-based contrast agents. One technique used contrast-enhanced ultrasound with intradermal injections of microbubbles (Lumason) in a patient with stage 3, nonpitting left upper extremity edema. Another technique used magnetic resonance imaging with intradermal injections of 0.03 mg/mL or 0.003% ferumoxytol (Feraheme) in a patient with stage 3, nonpitting right lower extremity edema. Both contrast-enhanced ultrasound with microbubbles and magnetic resonance lymphangiogram with ferumoxytol were able to identify candidates for lymphovenous bypass surgery. These candidates were not identified by conventional indocyanine green injections. The authors conclude that (1) low-dose ferumoxytol is a potentially effective non-gadolinium–based contrast alternative to gadolinium-based contrast agent in magnetic resonance lymphangiography and (2) contrast-enhanced ultrasound can identify candidate lymphatic vessels for anastomosis.

Objective: Biopsy markers are often placed into biopsy-proven metastatic axillary lymph nodes to ensure later accurate node excision. Ultrasound is the preferred imaging modality in the axilla. However, sonographic identification of biopsy markers after neoadjuvant therapy can be challenging. This is due to poor conspicuity relative to surrounding parenchymal interfaces, treatment-related alteration of malignant morphology during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or extrusion of the marker from the target. To the authors’ knowledge, the literature provides no recommendations for ultrasound scanning parameters that improve the detection of biopsy markers. The purpose of this manuscript is 3-fold: (1) To determine scanning parameters that improve sonographic conspicuity of biopsy markers in a phantom and cadaver model; (2) to implement these scanning parameters in the clinical setting; and (3) to provide strategies that might increase the likelihood of successful ultrasound detection of biopsy markers in breast imaging practices. Materials and Methods: An ex vivo study was performed using a phantom designed to simulate the heterogeneity of normal mammary or axillary soft tissues. A selection of available biopsy markers was deployed into this phantom and ultrasound (GE LOGIQ E9) was performed. Scanning parameters were adjusted to optimize marker conspicuity. For the cadaver study, the biopsy markers were deployed using ultrasound guidance into axillary lymph nodes of a female cadaver. Adjustments in transducer frequency, dynamic range, cross-beam (spatial compound imaging), beam steering, speckle reduction imaging, harmonic imaging, colorization, and speed of sound were evaluated. Settings that improved marker detection were used clinically for a year. Results: Sonographic scanning settings that improved biopsy marker conspicuity included increasing transducer frequency, decreasing dynamic range, setting cross-beam to medium hybrid, turning on beam steering, and setting speckle reduction imaging in the mid-range. There was no appreciable improvement with harmonic imaging, colorization, or speed of sound. Conclusion: On a currently available clinical ultrasound scanning system, ultrasound scanning parameters can be adjusted to improve the conspicuity of biopsy markers. Overall, optimization requires a balance between techniques that clinically increase contrast (dynamic range, harmonic imaging, and steering) and those that minimize graininess (spatial compound imaging, speckle reduction imaging, and steering). Additional scanning and procedural strategies have been provided to improve the confidence of sonographic detection of biopsy markers closely associated with the intended target.

When a breast lesion is seen on only magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and needs to be excised, pre-operative MRI-guided radioactive seed localization (RSL) is preferred. However, MRI safety and radiation safety issues associated with the inability to recover a potentially lost seed in the MRI scanner room (Zone IV) have precluded this in the past. This manuscript provides a protocol for MRI-guided RSLs that meets MRI safety and radiation safety criteria established by the American College of Radiology and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. To the authors’ best knowledge, this has never been published in the literature. The complete protocol is provided.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of symptomatic and asymptomatic solitary dilated ducts detected on mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. Methods: All cases of isolated solitary dilated ducts between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2016 in non-lactating females were reviewed. Clinical data, including patient’s age, breast cancer history, and pathology results were collected. Imaging was reviewed, and indication for the exam, breast density, maximum diameter of the dilated duct on ultrasound, presence of an intraductal mass, presence of intraductal vascularity, presence of intraductal echogenicity, and subareolar or peripheral location of the dilated duct were recorded. Results: 87 cases of solitary dilated ducts were assessed in this study, of which 3 were malignant, resulting in a positive predictive value of 3.5% (3/87). No malignancy was identified in asymptomatic screening patients. The three malignant cases were seen in patients presenting with a palpable lump (n = 1) or bloody nipple discharge (n = 2). There was a statistically significant association observed between the dilated duct diameter (p = 0.049) and presence of intraductal vascularity (p = 0.0005) with presence of malignancy. Conclusion: Rate of malignancy is low in solitary dilated ducts, especially among asymptomatic patients. Patient’s presenting with clinical symptoms, larger dilated duct diameters, and/or intraductal vascularity may require additional evaluation including biopsy to exclude malignancy. Advances in knowledge: Clinical and imaging factors can assist in better identifying patients with solitary dilated ducts who should undergo biopsy.