Breast Radiologists' Perceptions on the Detection and Management of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Most Agree Imaging Beyond Mammography Is Warranted.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Kristen Coffey, Wendie A Berg, Katerina Dodelzon, Maxine S Jochelson, Lisa A Mullen, Jay R Parikh, Laurie Hutcheson, Lars J Grimm
{"title":"Breast Radiologists' Perceptions on the Detection and Management of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Most Agree Imaging Beyond Mammography Is Warranted.","authors":"Kristen Coffey, Wendie A Berg, Katerina Dodelzon, Maxine S Jochelson, Lisa A Mullen, Jay R Parikh, Laurie Hutcheson, Lars J Grimm","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbad112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine breast radiologists' confidence in detecting invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) on mammography and the perceived need for additional imaging in screening and preoperative settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 16-item anonymized survey was developed, and IRB exemption obtained, by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and the Lobular Breast Cancer Alliance. The survey was emailed to 2946 radiologist SBI members on February 15, 2023. The survey recorded demographics, perceived modality-specific sensitivity for ILC to the nearest decile, and opinions on diagnosing ILC in screening and staging imaging. Five-point Likert scales were used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response rate was 12.4% (366/2946). Perceived median (interquartile range) modality-specific sensitivities for ILC were MRI 90% (80-90), contrast-enhanced mammography 80% (70-90), molecular breast imaging 80% (60-90), digital breast tomosynthesis 70% (60-80), US 60% (50-80), and 2D mammography 50% (30-60). Only 25% (85/340) respondents were confident in detecting ILC on screening mammography in dense breasts, while 67% (229/343) were confident if breasts were nondense. Most agreed that supplemental screening is needed to detect ILC in women with dense breasts (272/344, 79%) or a personal history of ILC (248/341, 73%), with 34% (118/334) indicating that supplemental screening would also benefit women with nondense breasts. Most agreed that additional imaging is needed to evaluate extent of disease in women with newly diagnosed ILC, regardless of breast density (dense 320/329, 97%; nondense 263/329, 80%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most breast radiologists felt that additional imaging beyond mammography is needed to more confidently screen for and stage ILC.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10983784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine breast radiologists' confidence in detecting invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) on mammography and the perceived need for additional imaging in screening and preoperative settings.

Methods: A 16-item anonymized survey was developed, and IRB exemption obtained, by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and the Lobular Breast Cancer Alliance. The survey was emailed to 2946 radiologist SBI members on February 15, 2023. The survey recorded demographics, perceived modality-specific sensitivity for ILC to the nearest decile, and opinions on diagnosing ILC in screening and staging imaging. Five-point Likert scales were used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Results: Response rate was 12.4% (366/2946). Perceived median (interquartile range) modality-specific sensitivities for ILC were MRI 90% (80-90), contrast-enhanced mammography 80% (70-90), molecular breast imaging 80% (60-90), digital breast tomosynthesis 70% (60-80), US 60% (50-80), and 2D mammography 50% (30-60). Only 25% (85/340) respondents were confident in detecting ILC on screening mammography in dense breasts, while 67% (229/343) were confident if breasts were nondense. Most agreed that supplemental screening is needed to detect ILC in women with dense breasts (272/344, 79%) or a personal history of ILC (248/341, 73%), with 34% (118/334) indicating that supplemental screening would also benefit women with nondense breasts. Most agreed that additional imaging is needed to evaluate extent of disease in women with newly diagnosed ILC, regardless of breast density (dense 320/329, 97%; nondense 263/329, 80%).

Conclusion: Most breast radiologists felt that additional imaging beyond mammography is needed to more confidently screen for and stage ILC.

乳腺放射科医生对浸润性乳腺叶状癌的检测和管理的看法:大多数人认为有必要进行乳房 X 线照相术以外的成像检查。
目的确定乳腺放射科医生在乳房 X 光检查中发现浸润性小叶癌 (ILC) 的信心,以及在筛查和术前检查中对额外成像的认知需求:乳腺成像学会 (SBI) 患者护理与服务委员会和乳腺小叶癌联盟制定了一份 16 个项目的匿名调查,并获得了 IRB 豁免。调查于 2023 年 2 月 15 日通过电子邮件发送给 2946 名放射科医师 SBI 会员。调查记录了人口统计学特征、对ILC的感知模式特异性灵敏度(最接近的十分位),以及在筛查和分期成像中诊断ILC的意见。调查采用五点李克特量表(1 = 非常不同意,2 = 不同意,3 = 中立,4 = 同意,5 = 非常同意):结果:回复率为 12.4%(366/2946)。对 ILC 的感知中位数(四分位数间距)特定模式敏感度分别为:核磁共振成像 90% (80-90)、对比增强乳腺 X 线照相术 80% (70-90)、分子乳腺成像 80% (60-90)、数字乳腺断层扫描 70% (60-80)、US 60% (50-80) 和 2D 乳房 X 线照相术 50% (30-60)。只有 25% (85/340)的受访者有信心在致密乳房的乳腺 X 光筛查中发现 ILC,而 67% (229/343)的受访者有信心在非致密乳房的乳腺 X 光筛查中发现 ILC。大多数受访者同意,需要对乳房致密的女性(272/344,79%)或有 ILC 个人病史的女性(248/341,73%)进行补充筛查以检测 ILC,34% 的受访者(118/334)表示,补充筛查也会使乳房不致密的女性受益。大多数人同意,无论乳房密度如何,都需要对新诊断出 ILC 的妇女进行额外的成像检查,以评估疾病的程度(致密 320/329,97%;不致密 263/329,80%):结论:大多数乳腺放射科医生认为,除了乳腺X光检查外,还需要额外的影像学检查,以便更有把握地对ILC进行筛查和分期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信