| 1. |
- Bick, Ulrich, et al.
(author)
-
Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation : recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
- 2020
-
In: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 11:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Breast ultrasound : recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
- 2018
-
In: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 9:4, s. 449-461
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Schmitzberger, Florian F, et al.
(author)
-
Development of low-dose photon-counting contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis with spectral imaging
- 2011
-
In: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 0033-8419 .- 1527-1315. ; 259:2, s. 558-564
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of low-dose photon-counting tomosynthesis in combination with a contrast agent (contrast material-enhanced tomographic mammography) for the differentiation of breast cancer. Materials and Methods: All studies were approved by the institutional review board, and all patients provided written informed consent. A phantom model with wells of iodinated contrast material (3 mg of iodine per milliliter) 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15 mm in diameter was assessed. Nine patients with malignant lesions and one with a high-risk lesion (atypical papilloma) were included (all women; mean age, 60 7 years). A multislit photon-counting tomosynthesis system was utilized (spectral imaging) to produce both low- and high-energy tomographic data (below and above the k edge of iodine, respectively ) in a single scan, which allowed for dual-energy visualization of iodine. Images were obtained prior to contrast material administration and 120 and 480 seconds after contrast material administration. Four readers independently assessed the images along with conventional mammograms, ultrasonographic images, and magnetic resonance images. Glandular dose was estimated. Results: Contrast agent was visible in the phantom model with simulated spherical tumor diameters as small as 5 mm. The average glandular dose was measured as 0.42 mGy per complete spectral imaging tomosynthesis scan of one breast. Because there were three time points (prior to contrast medium administration and 120 and 480 seconds after contrast medium administration), this resulted in a total dose of 1.26 mGy for the whole procedure in the breast with the abnormality. Seven of 10 cases were categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher by all four readers when reviewing spectral images in combination with mammograms. One lesion near the chest wall was not captured on the spectral image because of a positioning problem. Conclusion: The use of contrast-enhanced tomographic mammography has been demonstrated successfully in patients with promising diagnostic benefit. Further studies are necessary to fully assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
|
|
