This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. Key Points • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7–14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

OBJECTIVE. Breast MRI has high sensitivity in breast cancer detection, and the BI-RADS MRI lexicon was a step toward standardized description of lesions. However, false-positive findings occur and lead to unnecessary biopsy. The purpose of this investigation was to identify criteria for false-positive findings in clinical practice.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eligible for investigation were all breast MRI examinations from a consecutive 16-month time period that had histopathologic verification and findings classified as BI-RADS category 4–6 in the initial MRI report. Accordingly, 132 patients with 120 malignant and 31 benign lesions were enrolled. Two blinded observers categorized lesions into mass or nonmass and used BI-RADS to identify descriptor distribution differences between the benign and malignant subgroups.RESULTS. The ratio of mass to nonmass lesions differed significantly (p < 0.001) between benign (1.2:1) and malignant (7:1) findings. Seventeen mass and 14 nonmass lesions were false-positive, and 1...

To evaluate the diagnostic utility of second-look ultrasonography (US) in the assessment of lesions identified at breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. A systematic review of the PubMed database for articles published up to January 6, 2013, was performed by using predefined search terms applied in a standardized manner. Second-look US studies for the assessment of breast lesions identified at MR imaging were eligible for this meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers performed the literature review and data extraction. Eligible studies presented data on the number of lesions examined and the number of lesions detected at second-look US. The reference standard for lesion diagnosis was either histopathologic or follow-up examination. Sources of bias were assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, or QUADAS-2 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 , tool. Statistical analysis included data pooling, heterogeneity testing, and meta-regression. Seventeen studies that included benign and malignant lesions met the inclusion criteria. The general lesion detection rate at second-look US was very heterogeneous and ranged between 22.6% and 82.1% (pooled rate, 57.5% [1266 of 2201]; 95% confidence interval [ CI confidence interval ]: 50.0%, 64.1% [random-effects model]; I(2) = 90.9%; P < .0001). The highest second-look US detection rates were observed for mass lesions (as opposed to nonmass lesions) and malignant (vs benign) lesions (P < .001 for both). Pooled positive and negative predictive values (positive or negative second-look US correlates of MR imaging-detected malignant or benign lesions) were calculated as 30.7% (95% CI confidence interval : 25.3%, 36.4%; I(2) = 75.4%; P < .0001) and 87.8% (95% CI confidence interval : 82.0%, 92.7%; I(2) = 82.1%; P < .0001), respectively, by using random-effects models. The results of this study demonstrated variable utility of second-look US in MR imaging-detected lesions, as lesion detection rates were very heterogeneous. Subgroup analysis showed that malignant and mass lesions were more likely to be detected at second-look US. Furthermore, malignancy was not excluded if a lesion was not detected at second-look US.

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.