BACKGROUND:Hookwire localisation (HWL) is the most established method of localising impalpable breast lesions. Previous cross-sectional study of Australian and New Zealand surgeons in 2016 found HWL to be the most widely used breast lesion localisation technique (LLT). Many non-wire techniques have subsequently been developed to address the limitations of HWL. The aim of this study is to assess current trends in the use of breast LLTs in Australia and New Zealand and to compare results with previous findings of a prior study. METHODS:Attendees of a national Breast Conference were invited to participate in an online survey between 25 March and 21 April 2023. RESULTS:100 complete responses were received. The number of respondents using each LLT was: HWL 95, Magseed 30, Carbon-track 26, SCOUT 19, IOUS 13, ROLLIS 9, ROLL 4, MOLLI 2. Considering the LLTs they used the most, 73 respondents stated HWL, 14 Magseed, 6 carbon-track and 4 ROLLIS. Magseed and ROLLIS were more likely to be the most used LLT of respondents in public practice, and HWL was more likely to be the most used LLT in private practice (p = 0.010). Since 2016, the use of radioguided techniques has increased (4%-13%, p = 0.036). CONCLUSION:HWL remains the most used LLT; however, non-wire LLTs are being used more frequently. Although non-wire LLTs have many advantages, familiarity and cost likely also influence the choice of technique.

OBJECTIVES:To understand whether and how breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at cancer diagnosis influences treatment planning, and whether subpopulations of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer benefit in terms of most appropriate management. DESIGN:Multicentre prospective observational study. SETTING:Seven centres across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia during the period 15 September 2020 to 14 July 2022. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with newly diagnosed early breast cancer meeting predefined criteria for whom multidisciplinary team normal practice deemed MRI would aid treatment planning. INTERVENTION:Preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Reasons for requesting MRI; pre-MRI versus post-MRI changes in treatment plans; changes justified by pathology findings. RESULTS:387 eligible participants were enrolled. MRI was most frequently requested for dense breasts (252 [65%]), clinical and/or radiological size discrepancy (161 [42%]), multifocality (108 [28%]) and young age (105 [27%]). Change in treatment plan after MRI occurred for 198 participants (51% [95% CI, 46-56%]), including a change in breast surgery plan for 119 participants (31% [95% CI, 26-36%]). More mastectomies were planned after MRI (15% v 28%; absolute risk difference [RD], 13 percentage points [95% CI, 9-17]; P < 0.001), including unilateral mastectomy (14% v 24%; RD, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 6-14]; P < 0.001) and bilateral mastectomy (1% v 4%; RD, 3 percentage points [95% CI, 1-5]; P < 0.001). No increases in planned mastectomies occurred for women aged ≥ 70 years (RD, -3 percentage points [95% CI, -15 to 9]; or in those for whom neoadjuvant therapy was planned (RD, 2 percentage points [95% CI, -11 to 14]). Change in surgery was deemed justified by pathology findings in 75 of 88 women who experienced a change (85% [95% CI, 75-91%]). CONCLUSIONS:Preoperative MRI findings led to changes in surgical management for a third of selected women with early breast cancer, increasing the mastectomy rate. In most cases, the changes were deemed appropriate. MRI findings did not change planned mastectomy in those aged ≥ 70 years, indicating that these women may not experience changes in surgical plans after such testing.

IntroductionContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and MRI detect 'contrast-only' lesions (COLs) occult on standard breast imaging (ultrasound and conventional mammography). Until recently, MRI was the only reliable method of biopsy. This study presents the first Australian experience with CEM-guided biopsy (CEMBx) and the lessons learnt.MethodsA prospective audit of the first 15 consecutive patients who underwent CEMBx for COLs was performed. Indications for contrast imaging, patient and lesion characteristics, procedural details, radiation dose and pathology data were collected.ResultsThe 15 women were aged 37-81 years (mean 59 years). Indications for contrast imaging were problem solving (n = 3), moderate risk screening (n = 2), cancer staging (n = 9) and symptoms (n = 1). The COLs were non-mass (n = 14), mass (n = 1) and an enhancing asymmetry (n = 1). For one patient, two lesions were sampled during the same event. All lesions enhanced and were successfully sampled followed by marker clip insertion. Most biopsies (87.5%) were performed with the breast in cranio-caudal compression using a horizontal approach. Procedural duration ranged from 13 to 33 min (mean 22 min). Radiation dose was similar to standard stereotactic biopsy. Post-biopsy hematomas occurred in three patients, none required intervention. Clip displacement occurred in three cases. Core biopsy histopathology results were benign (n = 8), malignant (n = 7) and a borderline breast lesion (BBL) (n = 1). Patient satisfaction rates were high. Imaging follow-up is ongoing.ConclusionsCEMBx is a quick, safe and reliable alternative to MRIBx to sample COLs.

Imaging research pathways focus increasingly on the development of individualised approaches to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and management. Detection of breast cancer with X-ray mammography may fail in some cancer subtypes with limited changes in morphology/tissue density and in women with dense breasts. International organisations offer recommendations for contrast-enhanced breast imaging, as it provides superior sensitivity for screening, local staging and assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response, when compared with standard X-ray mammography (including tomosynthesis) and breast ultrasound. Arguably, the evidence base is stronger for contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). Unfortunately, patient access to breast MRI in rural and remote areas is limited by practical limitations and equipment licensing restrictions. Moreover, breast MRI is an expensive test, likely to be out of reach for many women. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) offers an attractive alternative to improve patient access to functional breast imaging. It is a new type of digital, dual energy X-ray mammography that can be performed on most modern units, following a relatively inexpensive hard- and software upgrade. In this paper, we review the rapidly accumulating evidence that CEM can provide similar diagnostic accuracy to CE-MRI, though at a significantly lower cost and offering greater comfort to the patient. The adoption of CEM can help meet the anticipated increased demand for CE-MRI.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

IntroductionImpalpable breast lesions generally require image-guided localisation for breast-conserving surgery. A standard technique is to place a hook wire (HW) within the lesion. Radioguided occult lesion localisation using iodine seeds (ROLLIS) involves inserting a 4.5 mm iodine-125 seed (seed) into the lesion. We hypothesised that a seed could be more precisely positioned in relation to the lesion than a HW and that this may be associated with a lower re-excision rate. MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive participant data from three ROLLIS RCT (ACTRN12613000655741) sites. Participants underwent preoperative lesion localisation (PLL) with seed or HW between September 2013 and December 2017. Lesion and procedural characteristics were recorded. Distances between (1) any part of the seed or thickened segment of the HW ('TSHW') and the lesion/clip ('distance to device' DTD) and (2) centre of the TSHW/seed and centre of the lesion/clip (device centre to target centre 'DCTC') were measured on immediate postinsertion mammograms. Pathological margin involvement and re-excision rates were compared. ResultsA total of 390 lesions (190 ROLLIS and 200 HWL) were analysed. Lesion characteristics and guidance modality used were similar between groups. Ultrasound-guided DTD and DCTC for seed were smaller than for HW (77.1% and 60.6%, respectively, P-value < 0.001). Stereotactic-guided DCTC for seeds was 41.6% smaller than for HW (P-value = 0.001). No statistically significant difference in the re-excision rates was found. ConclusionIodine-125 seeds can be more precisely positioned for preoperative lesion localisation than HW, however, no statistically significant difference in re-excision rates was detected.

Abstract Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is more available than MRI for breast cancer staging but may not be as sensitive in assessing disease extent. We compared CEM and MRI in this setting. Methods Fifty-nine women with invasive breast cancer underwent preoperative CEM and MRI. Independent pairs of radiologists read CEM studies (after reviewing a 9-case set prior to study commencement) and MRI studies (with between 5 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging). Additional lesions were assigned National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) scores. Positive lesions (graded NBCC ≥ 3) likely to influence surgical management underwent ultrasound and/or needle biopsy. True-positive lesions were positive on imaging and pathology (invasive or in situ). False-positive lesions were positive on imaging but negative on pathology (high-risk or benign) or follow-up. False-negative lesions were negative on imaging (NBCC < 3 or not identified) but positive on pathology. Results The 59 women had 68 biopsy-proven malignant lesions detected on mammography/ultrasound, of which MRI demonstrated 66 (97%) and CEM 67 (99%) (p = 1.000). Forty-one additional lesions were detected in 29 patients: six of 41 (15%) on CEM only, 23/41 (56%) on MRI only, 12/41 (29%) on both; CEM detected 1/6 and MRI 6/6 malignant additional lesions (p = 0.063), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1/13 (8%) and 6/26 (23%) (p = 0.276). Conclusions While MRI and CEM were both highly sensitive for lesions detected at mammography/ultrasound, CEM may not be as sensitive as MRI in detecting additional otherwise occult foci of malignancy. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729

Vacuum-assisted excision biopsy (VAEB) provides a safe alternative to surgical excision for selected (low-risk) B3 breast lesions. We report a case of imaging findings that mimicked malignancy in a patient one year post-VAEB. Awareness of this entity is important to prevent misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgical excision.

Objectives To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. Methods The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18–80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. Results A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI ( p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 ( p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 ( p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 ( p < 0.001) for P-MRI. Conclusions Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. Key Points • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups.

With modern technological advances in imaging, radial scars are more frequently encountered in clinical practice. The management of radial scars remains challenging due to associated upgrade to malignancy at excision. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has a similar sensitivity compared to MRI in addition to lower cost, better availability and fewer contra-indications. CEM is reported to have an overall excellent negative predictive value for malignancy. In this study, imaging of 55 patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of radial scar since the introduction of CEM into local practice was reviewed. Nine patients underwent CEM as part of their diagnostic work-up and these appearances are presented as a pictorial essay to demonstrate enhancement patterns of radial scars on CEM in this cohort and consider how this knowledge may influence management.

BACKGROUND:Radio-guided occult lesion localisation using iodine 125 seeds (ROLLIS) is used to localize impalpable breast cancers for breast conserving surgery (BCS). Previous studies have suggested improved efficiency and patient outcomes with ROLLIS compared with hook-wire localisation (HWL). The aim of this report is to compare the post-operative complication rates and safety profiles of ROLLIS versus hook-wire guided surgery.METHODS:Between September 2013 and March 2018, 690 women with non-palpable breast cancer eligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned to either pre-operative localisation with 125 I seed or hook-wire as part of the ROLLIS clinical trial. Medical record review of 170 women (30% of the total participants) from three tertiary hospitals in Western Australia was performed. Post-operative complications were classified using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) grade I to V.RESULTS:Total of 170 surgeries were performed: 82 by ROLLIS and 88 by hook-wire. The overall complication rate in the ROLLIS group was 19.5%, with 15.9% being grade II and 3.66% grade III. In the HWL group, the complication rate was 22.7% with 20.5% being grade II and 2.27% grade III. There was no statistically significant difference in complication grades between the 2 groups. No grade IV or grade V complications were reported. Complications observed included drainable seroma, drainable haematoma and surgical site infection.CONCLUSION:ROLLIS is a safe method of localisation for surgical resection with similar complication rates as hookwires. We encourage its use as an alternative localisation technique as it has demonstrable superiority and efficacy.

Objectives To investigate the influence of preoperative breast MRI on mastectomy and reoperation rates in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Methods The MIPA observational study database (7245 patients) was searched for patients aged 18–80 years with pure unilateral DCIS diagnosed at core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy (CNB/VAB) and planned for primary surgery. Patients who underwent preoperative MRI (MRI group) were matched (1:1) to those who did not receive MRI (noMRI group) according to 8 confounding covariates that drive referral to MRI (age; hormonal status; familial risk; posterior-to-nipple diameter; BI-RADS category; lesion diameter; lesion presentation; surgical planning at conventional imaging). Surgical outcomes were compared between the matched groups with nonparametric statistics after calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results Of 1005 women with pure unilateral DCIS at CNB/VAB (507 MRI group, 498 noMRI group), 309 remained in each group after matching. First-line mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 20.1% (62/309 patients, OR 2.03) compared to 11.0% in the noMRI group (34/309 patients, p = 0.003). The reoperation rate was 10.0% in the MRI group (31/309, OR for reoperation 0.40) and 22.0% in the noMRI group (68/309, p < 0.001), with a 2.53 OR of avoiding reoperation in the MRI group. The overall mastectomy rate was 23.3% in the MRI group (72/309, OR 1.40) and 17.8% in the noMRI group (55/309, p = 0.111). Conclusions Compared to those going directly to surgery, patients with pure DCIS at CNB/VAB who underwent preoperative MRI had a higher OR for first-line mastectomy but a substantially lower OR for reoperation. Clinical relevance statement When confounding factors behind MRI referral are accounted for in the comparison of patients with CNB/VAB-diagnosed pure unilateral DCIS, preoperative MRI yields a reduction of reoperations that is more than twice as high as the increase in overall mastectomies. Key Points • Confounding factors cause imbalance when investigating the influence of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes of pure DCIS. • When patient matching is applied to women with pure unilateral DCIS, reoperation rates are significantly reduced in women who underwent preoperative MRI. • The reduction of reoperations brought about by preoperative MRI is more than double the increase in overall mastectomies.

BACKGROUND:Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are more accurate than conventional imaging (CI) for breast cancer staging. How adding CEM and MRI to CI might change the surgical plan is understudied.METHODS:Surgical plans (breast conserving surgery (BCS), wider BCS, BCS with diagnostic excision (>1BCS), mastectomy) were devised by mock-MDT (radiologist, surgeon and pathology reports) according to disease extent on CI, CI + CEM and CI + MRI. Differences in the mock-MDT's surgical plans following the addition of CEM or MRI were investigated. Using pre-defined criteria, the appropriateness of the modified plans was assessed by comparing estimated disease extent on imaging with final pathology. Surgery performed was recorded from patient records.RESULTS:Contrast imaging modified mock-MDT plans for 20 of 61(32.8%) breasts. The addition of CEM changed the plan in 16/20 (80%) and MRI in 17/20 breasts (85%). Identical changes were proposed by both CEM and MRI in 13/20 (65%) breasts. The modified surgical plan based on CI + CEM was possibly appropriate for 6/16 (37.5%), and CI + MRI in 9/17, (52.9%) breasts. The surgery performed was concordant with the mock-MDT plan for all 10 patients where the plans could be compared (BCS 1, >1 BCS 2 and mastectomy 7).CONCLUSION:Adding CEM or MRI to CI changed mock-MDT plans in up to one third of women, but not all were appropriate. Changing surgical plans following addition of contrast imaging to CI without biopsy confirmation could lead to over or under-treatment.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the accuracy and precision of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) vs MRI to predict the size of biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer. Methods: Prospective study, 59 women with invasive breast cancer on needle biopsy underwent CEM and breast MRI. Two breast radiologists read each patient's study, with access limited to one modality. CEM lesion size was measured using low-energy and recombined images and on MRI, the first post-contrast series. Extent of abnormality per quadrant was measured for multi-focal lesions. Reference standards were size of largest invasive malignant lesion, invasive (PathInvasive) and whole (PathTotal). Pre-defined clinical concordance +/- 10 mm. Results: Mean patient age 56 years, 42 (71%) asympto-matic. Lesions were invasive ductal carcinoma 40 (68%) with ductal carcinoma in situ (31/40) in 78%, multifocal in 12 (20%). Median lesion size was 17 mm (invasive) and 27 mm (total), range (5-125 mm). Lin's concordance correlation coefficients for PathTotal 0.75 (95% CI 0.6, 0.84) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.56, 0.82) for MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) respectively. Mean difference for total size, 3% underestimated and 4% overestimated, and for invasive 41% and 50% over-estimate on MRI and CESM respectively. LOAs for Path -Total varied from 60% under to a 2.4 or almost threefold over estimation. MRI was concordant with PathTotal in 36 (64%) cases compared with 32 (57%) for CESM. Both modalities concordant in 26 (46%) cases respectively. Conclusion Neither CEM nor MRI have sufficient accu-racy to direct changes in planned treatment without needle biopsy confirmation. Advances in knowledge: Despite small mean differ-ences in lesion size estimates using CEM or MRI, the 95% limits of agreement do not meet clinically acceptable levels.

INTRODUCTION:In Australia, the usual approach to breast lesions where core biopsy returns an uncertain result ("B3" breast lesion) is to perform surgical diagnostic open biopsy (DOB). This is associated with patient time off work, costs of hospital admission, risks of general anaesthesia and surgical complications. The majority of B3 lesions return benign results following surgery. Vacuum assisted excision biopsy (VAEB) is a less invasive, lower cost alternative, and is standard of care for selected B3 lesions in the United Kingdom. Similar use of VAEB in Australia, could save many women unnecessary surgery. The aim of this study was to document our experience during the introduction of VAEB as an alternative to DOB for diagnosis of selected B3 lesions.METHODS:The multidisciplinary team developed an agreed VAEB pathway for selected B3 lesions. Technically accessible papillary lesions, mucocele-like lesions and radial scars without atypia measuring ≤ 15mm were selected.RESULTS:Over a 7 month period, 18 women with 20 B3 lesions were offered VAEB. 16 women (18 lesions) chose VAEB over DOB. Papillomas were the commonest lesion type. All lesions were successfully sampled: 17/18 were benign. One lesion (6%) was upgraded to malignancy (ductal carcinoma in situ on VAEB, invasive ductal carcinoma at surgery). No major complications occurred. Patient satisfaction was high: 15/16 respondents would again choose VAEB over surgery.CONCLUSION:VAEB is a patient-preferred, safe, well-tolerated, lower-cost alternative to DOB for definitive diagnosis of selected B3 breast lesions.

Fat necrosis (FN) occurs when there is ischaemia to breast tissue because of trauma, surgery, radiotherapy or a combination of these. It can be asymptomatic or present as a mass lesion that can be misdiagnosed as malignancy or as early recurrence in a patient treated for breast cancer.[1][1] Blood

Breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare condition related to textured breast implants. Recognition of characteristic imaging and pathological features are important, given the absence of symptoms can delay diagnosis, as illustrated by this case. Late-onset peri-implant effusion is commonly encountered whilst an associated mass or lymphadenopathy are rare. Clinical and radiological suspicion enables dedicated pathology work-up for diagnosis. Ultrasound is vital for initial work-up whilst MRI and PET-CT assist in staging. Surgical explantation is followed by adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy according to disease extent.

INTRODUCTION:Breast Screen Australia and Breast Screen Aotearoa guidelines recommend breast biopsy marker (BBM) use in indicated patients. This study aims to evaluate breast biopsy practice and BBM utilisation by modality.METHODS:An online survey was disseminated to radiologists who identified 'breast imaging' as their area of practice in the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) customer relationship management system. Survey questions addressed participant demographics and factors relating to BBM use.RESULTS:Most respondents (72%) place between 1 and 4 BBMs per week. Almost all (99%) respondents perform ultrasound-guided biopsy of the breast or axillary nodes, with 85% performing stereotactic or tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsy and 27% performing MRI-guided breast biopsy. BBM utilisation differs by modality, with 97% respondents always placing a BBM post-MRI-guided breast biopsy, 50% always placing a BBM post-stereotactic-guided biopsy and 3% always placing a BBM post-ultrasound-guided breast biopsy.CONCLUSIONS:Almost all radiologists perform breast biopsy using ultrasound, stereotactic/tomosynthesis or MRI guidance. BBM utilisation varies by modality, with 72% of respondents placing between 1 and 4 clips per week. Reasons for placing or not placing BBM aligned with prior studies. This is the first study to evaluate the number of breast biopsies performed by radiologists on a weekly or monthly basis, providing a useful platform for comparison in the local setting.