Previous imaging findings of breast cancers that occurred in combined screening negatives

Purpose

To retrospectively evaluate previous imaging findings of breast cancers that occurred in women whose combined screening using both mammography and ultrasonography was negative.

Materials and methods

A search of the institutional database identified 65 patients with breast cancers who had comparable previous negative screening mammography and ultrasonography (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) within 2 years. We classified each case as true or false negative. The previous imaging findings and the final outcome were analyzed.

Results

Among 65 cases, 42 (65%) were true negatives, 23 (35%) were false negatives. The abnormalities of false negatives were underestimated in 16 (70%) and unrecognized in 7 (30%). The findings were calcifications (n = 8) or a mass (n = 6) on mammography, a mass (n = 5) or a non-mass (n = 3) on ultrasonography and a density on mammography correlated with non-mass on ultrasonography (n = 1). Ductal carcinoma in situ among false and true negatives accounted for 5 (22%) and 7 (17%), respectively. Symptomatic cancers among false and true negatives were 6 (26%) and 13 (31%), respectively.

Conclusion

Breast cancers that rarely occurred in combined screening negatives are often retrospectively seen as minimal abnormalities on previous imaging studies.     

Image quality of mammography in Croatian nationwide screening program: comparison between various types of facilities

Purpose

The study was aimed to provide objective evidence about the mammographic image quality in Croatia, to compare it between different types of MG facilities and to identify the most common deficiencies and possible reasons as well as the steps needed to improve image quality.

Materials and methods

A total of 420 mammographic examinations collected from 84 mammographic units participating in the Croatian nationwide breast cancer screening program were reviewed in terms of four image quality categories: identification of patient and examination, breast positioning and compression, exposure and contrast, and artifacts. Those were rated using image evaluating system based on American College of Radiology and European Commission proposals. The results were compared among different types of mammographic units, and common image quality deficiencies were identified.

Results

Total image quality scores of 12.8, 16.1, 13.0 and 13.7 were found for general hospitals, university hospitals, private clinics and public healthcare centres, respectively. Average score for all mammographic units was 13.5 (out of 25 points). University hospitals were significantly better than all other mammography units in overall image quality, which was mostly contributed by better breast positioning practices. Private clinics showed the worst results in identification, exposure, contrast and artifacts.

Conclusions

Serious deficiencies in identification and breast positioning, which might compromise breast cancer screening outcome, were detected in our material. They occur mainly due to subjective reasons and could be corrected through additional staff training and improvement of working discipline.     

Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultrasound

Objective

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance mammography and comparison with conventional mammography and ultrasonography in cases of women with suspicious breast lesions.

Subjects and methods

Sixty-nine women (age range 39–68 years) with 78 focal breast lesions were examined with mammography, ultrasonography and dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. The lesions were classified according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of the American College of Radiology for each diagnostic method. Histological reports were available after biopsy or surgical excision of the lesions.

Results

Pathological examination confirmed that 53 lesions were malignant and 25 benign. Conventional mammography estimated a total of 59/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions, ultrasonography estimated a total of 50/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions and magnetic resonance mammography estimated a total of 66/78 lesions as malignant with 52 true positive lesions. Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance mammography in the diagnosis of malignancy was 98.1% and 44%, of conventional mammography 83% and 40% and of ultrasonography 83% and 76%. Negative predictive value for magnetic resonance mammography was 91.7%, for ultrasonography 67.9% and for mammography 52.6% for malignancies.

Conclusion

Magnetic resonance mammography has the highest negative predictive value compared with mammography and ultrasound in cases of suspicious breast lesions. The combination of morphologic and enhancement criteria can improve the diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) in breast lesion characterization.     

Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program

Background

Digital radiography has several advantages over screen-film radiography in data storage and retrieval, making it an attractive alternative to screen-film radiography in screening mammography programs, if it performs as well.

Methods

We retrospectively compared screen-film mammography, photon-counting direct radiography, and computed radiography with population-based screening data from the Breast Unit at Helsingborg Hospital, Sweden, collected between January 2000 and February 2005. Outcomes were cancer detection rates, recall rates, and positive predictive values for breast cancer detection in women reappearing for screening.

Results

Data were available for 52,172 two-view mammography examinations of 24,875 women. No initial screening (prevalence) examinations were included. Cancer detection rates based on mammographic findings were 0.31% (81/25,901) for film, 0.49% (48/9841) for photon-counting, and 0.38% (63/16,430) for computed radiography. The recall rate for film was 1.4%, which was significantly higher than that for PC-DR (1.0%; P < 0.001) and computed radiography (1.0%; P < 0.001). The positive predictive value was lower for film (22%) than for photon-counting (47%; P < 0.001) and computed radiography (39%; P < 0.001). In addition, the average glandular dose was 1.1 mGy for film, 0.28 mGy for photon-counting and 0.92 mGy for computed radiography. Thus, photon-counting provided a 75% dose reduction, and computed radiography a 16% dose reduction, over film.

Conclusions

Digital radiography, especially photon-counting, performs as well as or better than screen-film radiography. Given the advantages related to improved data storage and communication, digital radiography seems to be a valid alternative to screen-film radiography.     

Outcome of breast lesions detected at screening ultrasonography

Objective

To assess the final outcome of breast lesions detected during screening ultrasonography (US) and categorized by BI-RADS final assessment.

Materials and methods

During a 1-year period, 3817 consecutive asymptomatic women with negative findings at both clinical breast examinations and mammography underwent bilateral whole breast US and BI-RADS categories were provided for US-detected breast lesions. The reference standard was a combination of histology and US follow-up (≥12 months), and the final outcomes of 1192 US-detected lesions were analyzed.

Results

Of 904 category 2 lesions, 890 remained stable for 12–60 months. Biopsies of 14 lesions revealed no malignancies (NPV = 100%). Of 247 category 3 lesions, 232 remained stable for 12–60 months. Biopsies of 15 lesions revealed 2 malignancies, which were diagnosed within 6 months of the index examination and were node negative (NPV = 99.2%). Of 41 category 4 lesions, biopsies of 38 lesions revealed 5 malignancies (PPV = 12.2%), and 3 remained stable for 37–51 months. No US-detected lesion was classified as category 5.

Conclusion

The rates of malignancy for US-detected BI-RADS categories 2, 3, and 4 lesions were 0%, 0.8%, and 12.2%, respectively. The final assessment of US BI-RADS categorization showed it to be an appropriate predictor of malignancy for screening US-detected breast lesions.     

US screening for detection of nonpalpable locoregional recurrence after mastectomy

Purpose

To assess the value of screening ultrasonography (US) in the detection of nonpalpable locoregional recurrence following mastectomy for breast cancer and to describe the US appearances of occult recurrent cancers.

Materials and methods

During a 36-month period, 1180 consecutive US screenings were performed for mastectomy sites and ipsilateral axillary fossae in 468 asymptomatic women who had undergone mastectomy for breast cancer. All US results were divided into three groups: negative findings, probably benign nodules, and suspicious for malignant nodules. The final diagnoses were based on pathology results and clinical or sonographic follow-up for more than 12 months. The diagnostic performance of US for detecting nonpalpable locoregional recurrence was assessed. The US appearances of occult recurrent cancers were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Of the 468 patients assessed, 19 (4.1%) showed “suspicious for malignant nodules”; of these lesions, 10 were malignant. One false-negative case was identified. The sensitivity and specificity were 90.9% and 98.0%, respectively. A biopsy positive predictive value of 52.6% was observed. Cancer detection rates were 2.1% with US screenings of mastectomy sites and ipsilateral axillary fossae. The common US features of occult recurrences at the mastectomy sites were irregular shaped, not-circumscribed marginated, and hypoechoic masses with intratumoral vascularities. The most common location was within the deep muscle layer.

Conclusion

Although locoregional recurrence infrequently occurs after mastectomy for breast cancer, screening US enables detection of nonpalpable cancer before it can be detected by clinical examination. Routine follow-up US can be advocated for early detection of nonpalpable locoregional recurrent cancer.     

Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway,and Spain

Objective

To compare accuracy measures for mammographic screening in Norway, Spain, and the US.

Methods

Information from women aged 50–69 years who underwent mammographic screening 1996–2009 in the US (898,418 women), Norway (527,464), and Spain (517,317) was included. Screen-detected cancer, interval cancer, and the false-positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for recalls (PPV-1), PPV for biopsies (PPV-2), 1/PPV-1 and 1/PPV-2 were computed for each country. Analyses were stratified by age, screening history, time since last screening, calendar year, and mammography modality.

Results

The rate of screen-detected cancers was 4.5, 5.5, and 4.0 per 1000 screening exams in the US, Norway, and Spain respectively. The highest sensitivity and lowest specificity were reported in the US (83.1 % and 91.3 %, respectively), followed by Spain (79.0 % and 96.2 %) and Norway (75.5 % and 97.1 %). In Norway, Spain and the US, PPV-1 was 16.4 %, 9.8 %, and 4.9 %, and PPV-2 was 39.4 %, 38.9 %, and 25.9 %, respectively. The number of women needed to recall to detect one cancer was 20.3, 6.1, and 10.2 in the US, Norway, and Spain, respectively.

Conclusions

Differences were found across countries, suggesting that opportunistic screening may translate into higher sensitivity at the cost of lower specificity and PPV.

Key Points

? Positive predictive value is higher in population-based screening programmes in Spain and Norway.? Opportunistic mammography screening in the US has lower positive predictive value.? Screening settings in the US translate into higher sensitivity and lower specificity.? The clinical burden may be higher for women screened opportunistically.

     

Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography as performed in Vermont, USA, and Norway.

Methods

Incident screening data from 1997 to 2003 for female patients aged 50–69 years from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (116 996 subsequent screening examinations) and the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (360 872 subsequent screening examinations) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the initial (based on screening mammogram only) and final (screening mammogram plus any further diagnostic imaging) interpretations were directly adjusted for age using 5-year age intervals for the combined Vermont and Norway population, and computed for 1 and 2 years of follow-up, which ended at the time of the next screening mammogram.

Results

For the 1-year follow-up, sensitivities for initial assessments were 82.0%, 88.2% and 92.5% for 1-, 2- and >2-year screening intervals, respectively, in Vermont (p=0.022). For final assessments, the values were 73.6%, 83.3% and 81.2% (p=0.047), respectively. For Norway, sensitivities for initial assessments were 91.0% and 91.3% (p=0.529) for 2- and >2-year intervals, and 90.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for final assessments (p=0.630). Specificity was lower in Vermont than in Norway for each screening interval and for all screening intervals combined, for both initial (90.6% vs 97.8% for all intervals; p<0.001) and final (98.8% vs 99.5% for all intervals; p<0.001) assessments.

Conclusion

Our study showed higher sensitivity and specificity in a biennial screening programme with an independent double reading than in a predominantly annual screening program with a single reading.

Advances in knowledge

This study demonstrates that higher recall rates and lower specificity are not always associated with higher sensitivity of screening mammography. Differences in the screening processes in Norway and Vermont suggest potential areas for improvement in the latter.In a previous study in which selected early outcome measures of mammographic screening in Vermont, USA, and Norway were compared, higher recall and interval cancer rates were shown for Vermont than for Norway. The rate of screen-detected cancers did not differ [1]. The findings were consistent with other international studies [2-4]. Different radiological reading procedures have been suggested as a possible reason for the findings [1,2,4].Breast cancer screening involves a series of events that begins with the screening examination (bilateral two-view mammography), and may continue with a recall for diagnostic work-up. The diagnostic work-up may lead to a recommendation for a biopsy, which determines whether the suspect lesion is benign or malignant. In both Vermont and Norway, the decision to recall a female patient is based on the assessment of her initial screening mammogram. In the USA, single reading is the usual practice, while in Norway an independent double reading with consensus is performed, in accordance with the European guidelines [5]. In a single reading, a radiologist decides whether the female patient should be recalled for diagnostic work-up, while in an independent double reading with consensus, two radiologists discuss the findings and a consensus is reached as to whether to recall the patient. In both processes, a final assessment is reached after additional breast imaging (including ultrasound) to determine whether to recommend a biopsy.We surmise that the different procedures for initial assessment will affect the sensitivity and specificity of both the initial and the final assessments. However, this can be difficult to ascertain when comparing countries that also have differing screening intervals. To better understand how differences in the interpretation procedures of screening mammography may influence cancer detection, we have taken a detailed look at the sensitivity and specificity of initial and final assessments in our previously studied cohort of female patients aged 50–69 years who underwent screening mammography in Vermont or Norway during 1997–2003. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the sensitivity and specificity of the initial and final assessments of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.     

Breast tomosynthesis: A diagnostic addition to screening digital mammography

Objectives

Comparison between digital mammography alone and with adding digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening.

The cumulative risk of false-positive screening results across screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

Background

Recall for assessment in mammographic screening entails an inevitable number of false-positive screening results. This study aimed to investigate the variation in the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result and the positive predictive value across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Methods

We studied 618,636 women aged 50–69 years who underwent 2,090,575 screening exams (1996–2010. Recall rate, positive predictive value, rate of screen-detected cancer, and the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result, without and with invasive procedures across the screening centres were calculated. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the probability of a false positive screening result and to compute the cumulative false-positive risk for up to ten biennial screening examinations.

Results

The cumulative risk of a false-positive screening exam varied from 10.7% (95% CI: 9.4–12.0%) to 41.5% (95% CI: 34.1–48.9%) across screening centres, with a highest to lowest ratio of 3.9 (95% CI: 3.7–4.0). The highest to lowest ratio for the cumulative risk of undergoing an invasive procedure with a benign outcome was 4.3 (95% CI: 4.0–4.6). The positive predictive value of recall varied between 12.0% (95% CI: 11.0–12.9%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 18.3–21.5%), with a highest to lowest ratio of 1.7 (95% CI: 1.5–1.9).

Conclusions

A substantial variation in the performance measures across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program was identified, despite of similar administration, procedures, and quality assurance requirements. Differences in the readers’ performance is probably of influence for the variability. This results underscore the importance of continuous surveillance of the screening centres and the radiologists in order to sustain and improve the performance and effectiveness of screening programs.     

Assessment of breast lesions using BI-RADS US lexicon in mammographically dense breasts (ACR categories 3 and 4) with histopathological correlation

Purpose

To assess the role of ultrasonography in detection, and categorization of breast lesions in patients with mammographically dense breasts with the use of the BI-RADS US lexicon.

Patients and methods

This study included 60 female patients (age range from 20 to 80 years, mean 38.3 ± 11.9) complaining of mastalgia, breast lump or nipple discharge with mammographically dense breast tissue. Breast ultrasound was performed to all patients with a 12-MHz linear-array transducer. Sonographic findings of the breast lesions were described and categorized according to the BI-RADS US assessment categories. Biopsy procedures were performed for the sonographically detected breast lesions with histopathological examination of the biopsied tissue.

Results

The main complaint was palpable breast mass encountered in 25 patients, 12 of mastalgia, 4 of nipple discharge, 12 patients were on screening and 7 on follow up. 36 patients were categorized as ACR 3 and 24 ACR 4 regarding the density of their breasts in mammography. Mammography revealed no abnormalities in 31 patients and abnormal in 29 patients, the commonest mammographic finding was breast mass, detected in 19 patients. Ultrasound detected breast lesions in 56 (93.3%) out of 60 patients. BI-RADS US category 2 was the most common category representing 36.7%. Ultrasonography had a diagnostic reliability for differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions (p = 0.869) in mammographically dense breasts while mammography was diagnostically unreliable (p = 0.045).

Conclusion

Ultrasound is a mandatory adjunct to mammography in detection and characterization of breast lesions in mammographically dense breasts.     

Avoidable surgical consultations in women with a positive screening mammogram: Experience from a southern region of the Dutch breast screening programme

Introduction

According to current Dutch guidelines, all women with a positive screening mammogram are referred for a full hospital assessment, which includes surgical consultation and radiological assessment. Surgical consultation may be unnecessary for many patients. Our objective was to determine how often surgical consultations can be avoided by radiological pre-assessment.

Materials and methods

All women with a positive screening mammogram, referred to our radiology department between 2002 and 2007, were included (n = 1014). Percentage of women that was downstaged to BI-RADS category 1 or 2 by radiological pre-assessment was calculated. Negative predictive value (NPV) for malignancy was estimated from the in-hospital follow-up, which was available up to September 2012.

Results

423 of 1014 women (42%) were downstaged to BI-RADS category 1 or 2 by radiological pre-assessment. During follow-up, 8 of these 423 women (2%) developed a malignancy in the same breast. At least 6 of these malignancies were located at a different location as the original screening findings which led to the initial referral. The estimated NPV for malignancy was 99.5% (95%CI, 98.3–99.9).

Conclusion

By referring women with a positive screening mammogram to the radiology department for pre-assessment, a surgical consultation was avoided in 42%, with an estimated NPV of 99.5% for malignancy.     

Incremental clinical value of ultrasound in men with mammographically confirmed gynecomastia

Purpose

To determine whether ultrasound is of any value in male patients presenting with focal symptoms who have classic features of gynecomastia but no concerning findings on mammography.

Materials and Methods

Over a 3-year period, all male patients who underwent mammographic evaluation were identified in this retrospective study. Patients with a mammographic diagnosis of gynecomastia and subsequent breast ultrasound at a large tertiary academic medical center comprised the study cohort. Men whose ultrasound diagnosis differed from the initial mammographic evaluation were analyzed for both additional benign findings as well as findings that warranted biopsy.

Results

A total of 353 mammograms were obtained from 327 unique patients (ages 18–95, mean 51 years). Of all mammographic examinations, gynecomastia was the sole finding in 73% (259). In those 259 studies, 85% were further evaluated with ultrasound, in which 6 (2.7%) showed additional benign findings, and 4 (1.8%) showed suspicious findings for which biopsy was recommended. No malignancies were detected in those patients. Furthermore, no malignancies were detected in patients whose mammogram revealed only normal fatty parenchyma or only gynecomastia. In all cases of cancer, mammography revealed visible masses.

Conclusion

Judicious use of breast ultrasound in men improves outcome. Our data suggest that targeted ultrasound is of limited value in symptomatic male patients where mammography is negative or reveals only gynecomastia and leads to unnecessary benign biopsies in these patients. When mammography reveals concerning findings, ultrasound adds positively to clinical management.     

Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before,during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography

Objective

The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM).

Methods

We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013).

Results

At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2 % of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1 %). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDM recalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2 %, P?=?0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8 %, P?=?0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8 % after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6 %). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8 %, P?=?0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5 %, P?=?0.007).

Conclusions

More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers.

Key Points

? FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality. ? The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening. ? Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers. ? These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.

     

Does dynamic post contrast MRI of the breast have a role in screening of high risk patients?

Purpose

The aim of this work is to assess the role of dynamic post contrast MRI of the breast as an adjunct to mammography in screening high risk women especially those with dense breast parenchyma.

Patients and methods

A prospective study of 70 high risk cases of breast cancer who are examined by mammography and MRM to evaluate the results.

Results

MRM proved higher sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values.

Conclusion

MRM proved to be of high importance in diagnosis and management of breast cancer.     

Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment?

Objective

To assess the positive predictive values of incremental breast cancer detection (PPV1) in relation to the mammographic breast density and of performed biopsies (PPV3) resulting from supplemental bilateral physician-performed whole-breast ultrasound (US) at recall of a population-based digital mammography screening programme.

Methods

A total of 2,803 recalled screening participants (50–69 years), who had additional bilateral US with prospectively completed documentation [grading of breast density (ACR 1–4), biopsy recommendation related to US and mammography], were included.

Results

The PPV1 of supplemental cancer detection only by US was 0.21 % (6/2,803) compared to 13.8 % (386/2,803) by mammography. The PPV1 of US-only cancer detection was 0 %, 0.16 % (2/1,220), 0.22 % (3/1,374) and 1.06 % (1/94) for women with breast density of ACR 1, ACR 2, ACR 3 and ACR 4, respectively. The PPV3 of US-only lesion detection was 33.3 % (9/27) compared to 38.0 % (405/1,066) by mammography. The proportion of invasive cancers no larger than 10 mm was 37.5 % (3/8) for US-only detection compared to 38.4 % (113/294) for mammographic detection.

Conclusion

Bilateral ultrasound at recall, in addition to the assessment of screen-detected mammographic abnormalities, resulted in a low PPV of incremental cancer detection only by US, without a disproportional increase of false-positive biopsies.

Key Points

? Bilateral breast ultrasound was assessed in women recalled following digital mammography screening. ? Overall breast cancer detection rate reached the desired level of European guidelines. ? Additional ultrasound-only cancer detection had a low positive predictive value (0.21 %). ? Ultrasound did detect additional unexpected breast cancers in breasts graded ACR 2–4. ? Bilateral breast ultrasound offers little or only marginal benefit in routine screening.     

Level of satisfaction during mammography screening in relation to discomfort, service provided, level of pain and breast compression

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to identify the factors having the largest influence on the patients, experiences of mammography screening and if these factors can be generalised for different centres.

Material and methods

Three-hundred-and-ninety-three women attending mammography examination during two randomly selected days at four screening centres in the Southern Health Region of Norway were approached. A questionnaire designed to survey socio-demographic variables and their experience with mammography screening was distributed upon attendance. The answers to the questionnaire were related to the level of breast compression which was recorded for every patient. Statistical analyses were performed to assess women's satisfaction, discomfort and level of pain during mammography screening.

Results

Eighty-two percent (324/393) completed the questionnaire. Ninety-one percent were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the service at the mammography screening centres. Still, 80% reported high level of discomfort related to the examination. ‘Moderate’, ‘strong’ or ‘intense’ pain during breast compression was reported by 25% of the women. Mean breast compression ranged from 8.5 ± 1.2 kg to15.7 ± 2.2 kg. In all, 23% of women experienced strong and intense pain at a compression of more than 16 kg, while none of the women experienced strong or intense pain for compression less than 8 kg.

Conclusion

Our results concur with earlier studies showing high level of satisfaction among Norwegian women undergoing breast screening. The present study clearly demonstrates that the level of compression is vital to the patients' experience of pain, but do not seem to influence their level of satisfaction with the procedure.     

Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography

Purpose

To determine the frequency and characteristics of contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

Methods

We included a series of 130,338 screening mammograms performed between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2016. During the 1-year follow-up, clinical data were collected for all recalls. Screening outcome was determined for recalled women with or without evaluation of contralateral breast abnormalities.

Results

Of 3,995 recalls (recall rate 3.1%), 129 women (3.2%) underwent assessment of a contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormality. Most lesions were detected at clinical mammography and/or breast tomosynthesis (101 women, 78.3%). The biopsy rate was similar for recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions, but the positive predictive value of biopsy was higher for recalled lesions (p = 0.01). A comparable proportion of the recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant (p = 0.1). The proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ was similar for both groups, as well as invasive cancer characteristics and type of surgical treatment.

Conclusions

About 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled breast lesions. Evaluation of the contralateral breast after recall is important as we found that 15.5% of contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant. Contralateral cancers and screen-detected cancers show similar characteristics, stage and surgical treatment.

Key Points

? 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled lesions ? One out of seven contralateral, non-recalled lesions was malignant ? A contralateral cancer was diagnosed in 0.5% of recalls ? Screen-detected cancers and non-recalled, contralateral cancers showed similar histological characteristics ? Tumour stage and surgical treatment were similar for both groups

     

Dynamic MR-Mammography as the best method for diagnosis of invasive lobular breast carcinoma: A retrospective study

Aim of the study

It is a retrospective study aiming to provide diagnostic characterization of ILC in Dynamic MR-Mammography and to compare its diagnostic performance to mammography and ultrasonography.

Material and Method

A total of 56 cases of ILC were selected in retrospective review of mammography, ultrasonography and Dynamic MRM of 420 patients with invasive breast cancer.

Results

Asymmetric density was the commonest mammography finding and the measured sensitivity of mammography in detecting ILC was 87.5% (9/56 FN).The most common US manifestation of ILC was focal shadowing without a discrete mass and its sensitivity in detecting ILC was 84.9% (10/56 FN). At MR imaging, the most common manifestation of ILC was a solitary irregular or angular mass with speculated or ill-defined margins (33.9%of cases [n = 19]).The measured sensitivity is 96.5% (2/56 FN). Additional data such as those affected the patient management including the presence of multifocal or multicentric disease, chest wall involvement and contralateral breast cancer were encountered in 48.2% of cases [n = 27]. ILC has a tendency to demonstrate delayed maximum enhancement with washout exhibited by only a minority of lesions (21.4% [n = 12]).

Conclusion

MR imaging has proved to be superior to mammography and US in the detection and management of ILC. It provides useful information for further management and pre-surgical planning.