Madelene Lewis

Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to correlate various ultrasound features of breast cancer with tumor grade, and with estrogen, progesterone, and ERRB2 (formerly HER2) receptor status as well as to assess the predictive value of these features. MATERIALS AND METHODS The features of breast cancers found by using ultrasound between January 2010 and June 2011 were reviewed for tumor size, margins, and posterior acoustic features. The tumor margins were classified into spiculated, angular, indistinct, lobulated or microlobulated, and circumscribed. The posterior acoustic features were classified into shadowing, enhancement, mixed pattern, and no change. The individual features were correlated with the estrogen receptor (ER)-progesterone receptor (PR) and ERRB2 receptor status and tumor grade. RESULTS Among 160 patients with breast cancer, 102 (63.8%) were ER-positive/PR-positive, 32 (20.0%) were ER-positive/PR-negative, and 26 (16.3%) were ER-negative/PR-negative (22 were triple-negative). Tumors with posterior shadowing have greater than nine times the odds of having ER-positive findings (95% CI, 2.09-40.81; p = 0.011) and greater than 13 times the odds of having a lower-grade tumor (I or II vs III; 95% CI, 4.90-36.54; p < 0.001) than those without posterior shadowing. Tumors with posterior enhancement have greater than eight times the odds of having at least one negative receptor (95% CI, 3.97-18.11; p < 0.001) and 24 times the odds of having a high-grade tumor (95% CI, 9.91-58.14; p < 0.001) than those without posterior enhancement. CONCLUSION The presence of posterior shadowing is strongly associated with an ER-positive and low-grade tumor, whereas the presence of posterior enhancement is strongly associated with a high-grade tumor and with moderate risk of being receptor negative.

Comparative accuracy of preoperative tumor size assessment on mammography, sonography, and MRI: Is the accuracy affected by breast density or cancer subtype?

To compare the accuracy of preoperative breast tumor size measurements obtained on three imaging modalities (mammography [MM], sonography [US], and MRI) with those obtained on final pathologic examination for different breast densities and various tumor types.

Correlation of sonographic features of invasive ductal mammary carcinoma with age, tumor grade, and hormone-receptor status.

To determine whether presenting sonographic features of invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) are associated with patient age, tumor histologic grade, and hormonal receptor status.

Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to determine intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and to compare with those for density assessment using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five radiologists assessed breast density four times in 104 mammographic examinations: twice using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment based on each guideline were determined and compared. The density distribution pattern under each of the four BI-RADS density categories using each guideline was also noted and compared. RESULTS The intrareader agreement for density assessment using the fifth-edition criteria was lower than that using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.0179). The overall intrareader agreement (weighted kappa) using the old criteria was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97). The overall intrareader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The interreader agreement values obtained using the fifth-edition criteria were also lower than those obtained using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.006). The overall interreader agreement using the old BI-RADS criteria was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69), whereas the overall interreader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Overall a higher number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Compared with the intra- and interreader agreements obtained using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines, the intra- and interreader agreements were lower using the fifth-edition guidelines. An increased number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used.

Ovarian Cystic Lesions: A Current Approach to Diagnosis and Management

The primary imaging modality for evaluation of ovarian cystic lesions is pelvic ultrasonography. Most ovarian cysts are benign and demonstrate typical sonographic features that support benignity. However, some ovarian cystic lesions have indeterminate imaging features, and the approach to management varies. This article discusses how to recognize and diagnose different types of ovarian cystic lesions, including an approach to management. The learning objective is to recognize imaging features of ovarian cystic lesions.

Gender Bias in Diagnostic Radiology Resident Selection, Does it Exist?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To investigate whether there is a bias in the residency selection process that influences the proportion of females entering diagnostic radiology residencies. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 4117 applications to one diagnostic radiology residency program from 2008 to 2014 were analyzed. Invitations to interview were evaluated by each year, specifically looking at gender. Ranking of applicants, especially those placed in top 25% of the rank, was also assessed. Additional data analyzed included United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 board examination score (a proxy for academic performance), interview scores, and final position on rank list. RESULTS Female applicants averaged 24% of the total applicant pool during the years studied, yet made up a disproportionately high percentage of applicants invited to interview (30%) and those ranked in top 25% (38%). It was found that female applicants had slightly higher mean interview scores and lower Step 1 scores than male applicants. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that program directors in one program want to increase gender diversity by making strides to keep the female candidate pool and the proportion of female residents in the program at least stable. The pipeline of female medical students pursuing a career in radiology appears to be a limiting factor rather than a bias against women in the resident selection process. Identifying such trends is important as it provides a better understanding of the etiology for an overall lack of gender diversity within the field. Furthermore, it may lead to closing the gender gap in radiology.

Role of Breast Ultrasound and Mammography in Evaluating Patients Presenting with Focal Breast Pain in the Absence of a Palpable Lump

To determine if ultrasound and/or mammography is helpful in detecting breast cancers in patients presenting with focal breast pain. Patients who presented between February 2008 and April 2011 with focal breast pain without a lump were included in the study. The mammographic and US findings were retrospectively reviewed. BIRADS 0, 4, and 5 were considered positive on mammogram while BIRADS 4 and 5 were considered positive on US. The efficacy of mammogram‐alone, ultrasound‐alone, and in combination to detect breast cancer was evaluated. The performance of mammography for detecting any mass lesions that were present on subsequent US was also evaluated. A total of 257 patients were evaluated with US and 206 (80.1%) of these also had mammograms prior to the US. Cancer incidence was 1.2% (n = 3). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mammogram‐alone and US‐alone for detection of breast cancer in these patients were 100%, 87.6%, 10.7%, 100% and 100%, 92.5%, 13.6%, and 100%, respectively, while for combined mammogram and US was 100%, 83.7%, 8.3%, and 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mammogram for identifying an underlying suspicious mass lesion that was subsequently detected by US was 58%, 91%, 39%, and 95%. The NPV of a BIRADS 1 mammogram for any underlying mass lesion was 75%. Addition of an ultrasound to a mammogram did not detect additional cancers; likely due to low cancer incidence in these patients. However, US detected underlying mass lesions in 25% cases with a BIRADS 1 mammogram result.

Assessing the Relationship of Mammographic Breast Density and Proliferative Breast Disease

Increased breast density and a history of benign breast biopsy are both considered risk factors for developing breast cancer. Understanding the specifics of these risk factors and their relationship to each other can lead to a better understanding of a patients propensity for breast cancer development and improved surveillance strategies. We included 245 women who underwent a benign breast biopsy without atypia between October 2011 and June 2013. Biopsies were performed for suspicious calcifications as well as masses and architectural distortion. Lesions biopsied were divided into two groups: calcified and noncalcified lesions. The patients breast density was assessed on most recent mammogram and was classified using the American College of Radiology BI‐RADS density categories. Based on histologic diagnosis, each case was classified as proliferative or nonproliferative breast disease. The median age of the cohort (n = 245) was 55 years (range, 40–84 years). There were 162 (66%) postmenopausal women in the study. A core biopsy was performed for calcifications in 33.5% cases and for noncalcified lesions in 58% cases. In patients with dense breast tissue, an underlying proliferative histology was found significantly more frequently with calcifications (66.7%) as opposed to noncalcified lesions (35.9%) (RR = 2.3 (1.3–4.0); χ2 = 8.7; p = 0.003). In nondense breast patients, there was no significant difference (RR = 1.1 (0.7–1.8); χ2 = 0.1; p = 0.738). In the postmenopausal group, women with dense breasts had proliferative histology significantly more frequently than women with nondense breasts (55.3% versus 38.3%; p < 0.05), regardless of the underlying lesion type. Postmenopausal women with dense breasts who underwent a breast biopsy with benign histology had a significantly higher likelihood of having proliferative breast disease, regardless of underlying lesion type. Women with dense breasts also showed proliferative histology significantly more often for calcifications as opposed to noncalcified lesions.

Changes in Breast Density Reporting Patterns of Radiologists After Publication of the 5th Edition BI-RADS Guidelines: A Single Institution Experience

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to determine the impact of 5th edition BI-RADS breast density assessment guidelines on density reporting patterns in our clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS PenRad reporting system was used to collect mammographic breast density data reported by five radiologists: 16,907 density assignments using 5th edition BI-RADS guidelines were compared with 19,066 density assessments using 4th edition guidelines. Changes in the density assessment pattern were noted between the 4th and 5th edition guidelines, and agreement in density distribution was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient. A chi-square analysis was conducted for each reader to examine the change in the proportion of dense versus nondense assignments and on each category type to examine specific changes in proportion of density assignments from the 4th to the 5th edition. All reported p values are two-sided, and statistical significance was considered at the p < 0.001 threshold. RESULTS Using the 5th edition, there was an overall 5.0% decrease in fatty assessments (p < 0.001), 2.8% increase in scattered densities (p < 0.001), 2.6% increase in heterogeneously dense (p < 0.001), and 0.4% decrease in extremely dense assessments (p = 0.15). Comparing the dense with nondense categories, there was a 2.3% overall increase in the dense assessments (p < 0.001) using 5th edition guidelines, mainly in the heterogeneously dense category. Two radiologists showed increased dense assessments (p < 0.001) using the 5th edition, and three radiologists showed no change (p = 0.39, 0.67, and 0.76). CONCLUSION There was an overall increase in the dense assessments using the 5th edition, but individual radiologists in our clinical practice showed a variable adaptation to new guidelines.

Practical Implications for an Effective Radiology Residency Quality Improvement Program for Milestone Assessment

Utilization of a radiology resident-specific quality improvement (QI) program and curriculum based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones can enable a programs assessment of the systems-based practice component and prepare residents for QI implementation post graduation. This article outlines the development process, curriculum, QI committee formation, and resident QI project requirements of one institutions designated radiology resident QI program. A method of mapping the curriculum to the ACGME milestones and assessment of resident competence by postgraduate year level is provided. Sample projects, challenges to success, and lessons learned are also described. Survey data of current trainees and alumni about the program reveal that the majority of residents and alumni responders valued the QI curriculum and felt comfortable with principles and understanding of QI. The most highly valued aspect of the program was the utilization of a resident education committee. The majority of alumni responders felt the residency quality curriculum improved understanding of QI, assisted with preparation for the American Board of Radiology examination, and prepared them for QI in their careers. In addition to the survey results, outcomes of resident project completion and resident scholarly activity in QI are evidence of the success of this program. It is hoped that this description of our experiences with a radiology resident QI program, in accordance with the ACGME milestones, may facilitate the development of successful QI programs in other diagnostic radiology residencies.