Tejas S. Mehta

Objective: To determine reader preference for image order and thus, by inference, image timing after contrast administration that maximizes cancer visualization on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods: This IRB-approved reader study includes consecutive CEMs performed for research or clinical care in patients before a diagnosis of unifocal breast cancer, where the cancer was seen on both craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) recombined images. All CEMs started with the side containing cancer and alternated with the nonaffected side of the same projection. From 2016 to 2018, CC projection was performed first (group 1), and from 2019 to 2020, the MLO projection was performed first (group 2). Five readers evaluated cases for background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and lesion type. Readers assessed cancer visibility, confidence in margins, and cancer conspicuity using a 5-point Likert scale. Contrast-to-noise (CNR) measurements were also taken. Results: Seventy-eight female patients were included. Group 1 (CC-first) included 40 patients (51%) and group 2 (MLO-first) included 38 patients (49%). Mean age differed between groups by 5 years (P = .031), otherwise there were no differences in group characteristics. There was an overall preference for earlier-obtained images for cancer visibility, confidence in margins, and lesion conspicuity against BPE (P < .001) and preference for CC projection for lesion conspicuity (P = .045). In 35 instances (35/390, 9%), an individual reader reported a different lesion type on images obtained later, with a majority (28/35, 80%) reporting a less discernible lesion on later-obtained imaging (eg, mass changed to nonmass enhancement). Conclusion: Our study shows significant reader preference for cancer characteristic evaluation of CEM performed at earlier time points.

South Asians are a rapidly growing subset of the Asian population in the United States. They comprise people from multiple countries with diverse beliefs, languages, and cultural identities and values. The incidence of breast cancer is rising in South Asian women in the United States, with earlier onset and predilection for HER2-enriched tumors. Despite the rising incidence of breast cancer, participation in screening remains lower than other populations. Health care inequities in South Asian women are multifactorial and may be due to traditional health beliefs and practices, language barriers, cultural differences, and lack of overall awareness. Developing a culturally sensitive environment in breast imaging clinic practice can lead to improved patient care and adherence. Given the scarcity of data specific to the South Asian population in United States, there is a need for health service researchers and practice leaders to obtain more high-quality data to understand the needs of South Asian patient populations.

More than 25 million Americans have limited English-language proficiency (LEP) according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This population experiences challenges accessing health care and is least likely to receive preventive health care, including screening mammogram. In a setting where the breast radiologist does not speak the language of their patient, using certified medical interpreter services is fundamental. Medical interpreter use is associated with improved clinical care and patient satisfaction and can potentially increase adherence to screening mammograms and follow-up in patients with LEP. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires interpreter services for patients with LEP who are receiving federal financial assistance. Failure to provide interpretative services when necessary is considered discriminatory and illegal. The use of untrained medical interpreters, including ad hoc interpreters (eg, family, friends, or untrained staff), is associated with more medical errors, violation of confidentiality, and poor health outcomes. Types of medical interpretation services available to address language barriers include in-person interpretation, telephone and video remote interpretation, and qualified bilingual staff. Proper training and certification of medical interpreters is essential to prevent misinterpretations and ensure patient safety. When using an interpreter service, speak to and maintain eye contact with the patient, address the patient directly and seat the interpreter next to or slightly behind the patient, use visual aids whenever possible, and have the patient repeat the information to verify comprehension. Breast radiologists can address disparities in breast cancer screening and treatment by promoting effective communication.

Health care disparities, which are differences in the attainment of full health potential among population groups, have been documented across medical conditions, clinical settings, and diagnostic and treatment modalities. Deeply rooted health care disparities due to many factors have affected how Black women (BW) view medical care including screening mammography. This article explores health care disparities around breast cancer in BW and how patient distrust, provider biases, race, and social determinants of health continue to have negative effects on breast cancer outcomes in BW, despite medical advances in breast cancer detection and management. In addition, this article addresses the importance of culturally competent care for BW around breast cancer awareness, screening, and treatment, and offers strategies to address disparities and rebuild trust.

Background Despite growing interest in using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for breast cancer screening as an alternative to breast MRI, limited literature is available. Purpose To determine whether CEM is noninferior to breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI (AB MRI) and superior to two-dimensional mammography in an asymptomatic population simulating those who would present for screening and then undergo diagnostic work-up. Materials and Methods This enriched reader study used CEM and MRI data prospectively collected from asymptomatic individuals at a single institution from December 2014 to March 2020. Case sets were obtained at screening, as part of work-up for a screening-detected finding, or before biopsy of a screening-detected abnormality. All images were anonymized and randomized, and all 12 radiologists interpreted them. For CEM interpretation, readers were first shown low-energy images as a surrogate for digital mammography and asked to give a forced Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score for up to three abnormalities. The highest score was used as the case score. Readers then reviewed the full CEM examination and scored it similarly. After a minimum 1-month washout, the readers similarly interpreted AB MRI and full MRI examinations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, powered to test CEM noninferiority to full MRI, was performed. Results The study included 132 case sets (14 negative, 74 benign, and 44 malignant; all female participants; mean age, 54 years ± 12 [SD]). The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for digital mammography, CEM, AB MRI, and full MRI were 0.79, 0.91, 0.89, and 0.91, respectively. CEM was superior to digital mammography (P < .001). No evidence of a difference in AUC was found between CEM and AB MRI and MRI. Conclusion In an asymptomatic study sample, CEM was noninferior to full MRI and AB MRI and was superior to digital mammography. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03482557 and NCT02275871 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Objective: There is interest in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to screen breast cancer survivors, yet it is unclear whether they would accept CEM as their annual exam. The purpose of this study was to understand patient preferences to guide CEM implementation for screening.Methods: Consecutive women with breast cancer history who had CEM as their annual mammogram from July 2020 to August 2021 at a single academic institution completed an 18-question survey regarding prior contrast imaging, CEM experience, and comparison to other breast imaging exams. Response proportions were calculated, and chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were used to evaluate associations of demographics with responses.Results: A total of 78% (104/133) of women undergoing CEM provided results. Most were satisfied with CEM (99%, 103/104), had nothing to complain about (87%, 90/104), did not find CEM anxiety provoking (69%, 72/104), felt comfortable having contrast for annual imaging (94%, 98/104), were willing to accept the small risk of a contrast reaction if CEM would find their cancer (93%, 97/104), and would like to have CEM for their exam next year (95%, 99/104). Compared with mammography, 23% (24/104) reported CEM was a better experience, and 63% (66/104) reported CEM was about the same. Of those who had prior MRI, the majority reported CEM was better (53%, 29/55) and would prefer CEM if both MRI and CEM had an equal chance of detecting cancer (73%, 41/56). Most preferences did not differ significantly according to demographics.Conclusion: Most women surveyed considered CEM to be satisfactory and preferred compared to other breast screening modalities.

Objective: To provide an updated characterization of breast imaging fellowship programs in the United States to identify opportunities for improvement and standardization. Methods: An anonymous survey was e-mailed to program directors of breast imaging fellowship programs listed on the Society of Breast Imaging website. The survey was open from April 23, 2021, through May 27, 2021. The survey was deemed exempt by the IRB. Results: Forty-seven of 80 (59%) program directors responded, of which 36/47 (77%) represented programs dedicated 100% to breast imaging, and 11/47 (23%) represented programs dedicated 50%–75% to breast imaging. Common elements to most programs include tumor boards (47/47, 100%), journal clubs (39/47, 83%), case-based teaching sessions (35/47, 74%), didactic lectures (40/47, 85%), and participation in radiology-pathology conferences (29/47, 62%). Mammography Quality and Standards Act audit training (22/47, 47%), mammography quality control training (22/47, 47%), and formal communication training (19/47, 40%) were less common. Most programs provide exposure to wire (42/47, 89%) and wire-free localization procedures (45/47, 96%), but exposure to contrast-enhanced mammography (13/47, 28%) and molecular breast imaging (4/47, 9%) was limited. A small majority of programs (25/47, 53%) do not require weekday call; however, more (31/47, 66%) have weekend call responsibilities. Many programs (29/47, 62%) offer at least 3 weeks of elective time, which may be clinical or nonclinical. Conclusion: Breast imaging fellowship programs vary in curricula, modality exposure, and academic policies. The results of this survey can help guide further efforts to standardize and optimize fellowship training.