| 1. |
- Bick, Ulrich, et al.
(författare)
-
Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation : recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 11:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Evans, Andrew, et al.
(författare)
-
Breast ultrasound : recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 9:4, s. 449-461
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract: This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points: • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mann, Ritse M., et al.
(författare)
-
Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 32:6, s. 4036-4045
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract: Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. Key Points: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript
|
|
| 4. |
- Schiaffino, Simone, et al.
(författare)
-
Axillary lymphadenopathy at the time of COVID-19 vaccination : ten recommendations from the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 12:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schiaffino, Simone, et al.
(författare)
-
European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) guidelines on the management of axillary lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination : 2023 revision
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Insights into Imaging. - 1869-4101. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rodriguez-Ruiz, Alejandro, et al.
(författare)
-
Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 29:9, s. 4825-4832
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To study the feasibility of automatically identifying normal digital mammography (DM) exams with artificial intelligence (AI) to reduce the breast cancer screening reading workload. Methods and materials: A total of 2652 DM exams (653 cancer) and interpretations by 101 radiologists were gathered from nine previously performed multi-reader multi-case receiver operating characteristic (MRMC ROC) studies. An AI system was used to obtain a score between 1 and 10 for each exam, representing the likelihood of cancer present. Using all AI scores between 1 and 9 as possible thresholds, the exams were divided into groups of low- and high likelihood of cancer present. It was assumed that, under the pre-selection scenario, only the high-likelihood group would be read by radiologists, while all low-likelihood exams would be reported as normal. The area under the reader-averaged ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for the original evaluations and for the pre-selection scenarios and compared using a non-inferiority hypothesis. Results: Setting the low/high-likelihood threshold at an AI score of 5 (high likelihood > 5) results in a trade-off of approximately halving (− 47%) the workload to be read by radiologists while excluding 7% of true-positive exams. Using an AI score of 2 as threshold yields a workload reduction of 17% while only excluding 1% of true-positive exams. Pre-selection did not change the average AUC of radiologists (inferior 95% CI > − 0.05) for any threshold except at the extreme AI score of 9. Conclusion: It is possible to automatically pre-select exams using AI to significantly reduce the breast cancer screening reading workload. Key Points: • There is potential to use artificial intelligence to automatically reduce the breast cancer screening reading workload by excluding exams with a low likelihood of cancer. • The exclusion of exams with the lowest likelihood of cancer in screening might not change radiologists’ breast cancer detection performance. • When excluding exams with the lowest likelihood of cancer, the decrease in true-positive recalls would be balanced by a simultaneous reduction in false-positive recalls.
|
|
| 7. |
- Rodriguez-Ruiz, Alejandro, et al.
(författare)
-
One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection : do we need more?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 28:5, s. 1938-1948
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. Materials and methods: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1–10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. Results: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69–79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. Conclusion: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. Key points: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography.• One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT.• Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.
|
|
| 8. |
- Rodriguez-Ruiz, Alejandro, et al.
(författare)
-
Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography : Comparison With 101 Radiologists
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1460-2105 .- 0027-8874. ; 111:9, s. 916-922
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems performing at radiologist-like levels in the evaluation of digital mammography (DM) would improve breast cancer screening accuracy and efficiency. We aimed to compare the stand-alone performance of an AI system to that of radiologists in detecting breast cancer in DM.METHODS: Nine multi-reader, multi-case study datasets previously used for different research purposes in seven countries were collected. Each dataset consisted of DM exams acquired with systems from four different vendors, multiple radiologists' assessments per exam, and ground truth verified by histopathological analysis or follow-up, yielding a total of 2652 exams (653 malignant) and interpretations by 101 radiologists (28 296 independent interpretations). An AI system analyzed these exams yielding a level of suspicion of cancer present between 1 and 10. The detection performance between the radiologists and the AI system was compared using a noninferiority null hypothesis at a margin of 0.05.RESULTS: The performance of the AI system was statistically noninferior to that of the average of the 101 radiologists. The AI system had a 0.840 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.820 to 0.860) area under the ROC curve and the average of the radiologists was 0.814 (95% CI = 0.787 to 0.841) (difference 95% CI = -0.003 to 0.055). The AI system had an AUC higher than 61.4% of the radiologists.CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated AI system achieved a cancer detection accuracy comparable to an average breast radiologist in this retrospective setting. Although promising, the performance and impact of such a system in a screening setting needs further investigation.
|
|
| 9. |
- Sardanelli, Francesco, et al.
(författare)
-
The Role of Imaging Specialists as Authors of Systematic Reviews on Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging and Its Impact on Scientific Quality : Report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 0033-8419 .- 1527-1315. ; 272:2, s. 533-540
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the inclusion of radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (imaging specialists) as authors of systematic reviews (SRs) on imaging and imaging-guided diagnostic procedures and to determine the impact of imaging specialists' presence as authors on the overall quality of the reviews.Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed for SRs of diagnostic and interventional image-guided procedures that were published from January 2001 to December 2010. SRs about procedures primarily performed by nonimaging specialists were excluded. The inclusion of imaging specialists among the SR authors and the frequency of publication in imaging journals were evaluated. The quality of a subset of 200 SRs (100 most recent SRs with imaging specialists as authors and 100 most recent SRs without imaging specialists as authors) was rated by using a 12-item modified assessment of multiple SRs (AMSTAR) evaluation tool. Spearman, chi(2), and Mann-Whitney statistics were used.Results: From among 3258 retrieved citations, 867 SRs were included in the study. Neuroimaging had the largest number of SRs (28% [241 of 867]), 41% (354 of 867) of SRs concerned diagnostic performance, and 26% (228 of 867) of SRs were published in imaging journals. Imaging specialists were authors (in any position) in 330 (38%) of 867 SRs; they were first authors of 176 SRs and last authors of 161 SRs. SRs with imaging specialists as authors were more often published in imaging journals than in nonimaging journals (54% [179 of 330] vs 9% [49 of 537]; P < .001). The median number of modified AMSTAR quality indicators was nine in SRs with imaging specialists as authors, while that in SRs without imaging specialists as authors was seven (P = .003).Conclusion: Only 38% (330 of 867) of SRs on radiology or nuclear medicine-related imaging published from January 2001 to December 2010 included imaging specialists as authors. However, the inclusion of imaging specialists as authors was associated with a significant increase in the scientific quality (as judged by using a modified AMSTAR scale) of the SR.
|
|
