The effect of imaging on the clinical management of breast pain

Imaging for breast pain: A useful paradigm to promote breast cancer screening and reduce unnecessary breast imaging

OBJECTIVE

Identify the proportion of patients presenting for diagnostic breast imaging with clinically insignificant breast pain who are eligible for screening mammography and analyze the impact of routing these patients to screening on resource utilization, healthcare spending and cancer detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive women ≥40 years old without a history of breast cancer who underwent diagnostic mammogram and breast ultrasound for clinically insignificant breast pain from 1/2022 to 4/2022. Patients were screen-eligible if their last bilateral mammogram was over 12 months prior to presentation. Patients with only screening views during diagnostic mammography were assumed to have a negative/benign screening mammogram. Costs were calculated using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule.

RESULTS

68 of 100 patients with breast pain were screen-eligible at time of diagnostic imaging. With a screen first approach, 47/68 would have had negative/benign screening mammograms, allowing for the availability of 47 diagnostic breast imaging appointments. The current workflow led to 100 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 29 follow-up ultrasounds, and 10 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $42,872.41. With a screen first approach, there would have been 68 screening mammograms, 53 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 10 follow-up ultrasounds, and 9 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $34,231.60. Two cancers were identified, both associated with suspicious mammographic findings. None would have been missed in a screen-first approach.

DISCUSSION

Identifying screen-eligible patients with clinically insignificant breast pain and routing them to screening mammogram improves radiology resource allocation and decreases healthcare spending without missing any cancers.

Effectiveness of a novel consultant nurse-led breast pain clinic in secondary care

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast pain are usually seen in 'one-stop clinic' (OSC) with breast imaging. In the absence of associated red flag features, the incidence of breast cancer is extremely low. With increase in referrals the OSC capacity is over-stretched. We developed a consultant nurse-led dedicated 'breast pain clinic' in September 2021 without routine breast imaging. After meticulous history and examination, patients obtained detailed counselling and advice regarding breast pain management. If any abnormality was noted then appointment was given for OSC.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of a consultant nurse-led dedicated 'breast pain clinic'.

METHODS

A prospective study of all consecutive patients seen in 'breast pain clinic' from September 2021 until September 2022. Feedback was sought from all patients.

RESULTS

Altogether 429 patients were seen. The mean age was 48.7 years (range 18-86). 87.6% (n = 376) patients required no breast imaging. Only 12.4% (n = 53) patients needed referral to OSC and subsequently 2 patients (0.46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. Ninety-eight percent of patients felt reassured and 99.2% patients were extremely likely/likely to recommend this service to family and friends. Out of 376 patients who were discharged from breast pain clinic, 12 patients were referred again over a median follow-up period of 15 months, and 2 out of them were diagnosed with breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

A consultant nurse-led 'breast pain clinic' provides service improvement as it eases the pressure on the OSC. Most patients were managed without breast imaging with high level of patient satisfaction and low rereferral rate.

An Image-Rich Educational Review of Breast Pain

Breast pain is extremely common, occurring in 70% to 80% of women. Most cases of breast pain are from physiologic or benign causes, and patients should be reassured and offered treatment strategies to alleviate symptoms, often without diagnostic imaging. A complete clinical history and physical examination is key for distinguishing intrinsic breast pain from extramammary pain. Breast pain without other suspicious symptoms and with a negative history and physical examination result is rarely associated with malignancy, although it is a common reason for women to undergo diagnostic imaging. When breast imaging is indicated, guidelines according to the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria should be followed as to whether mammography, US, or both are recommended. This review article summarizes the initial clinical evaluation of breast pain and evidence-based guidelines for imaging. Additionally, the article reviews cyclical and noncyclical breast pain and provides an image-rich discussion of the imaging presentation and management of benign and malignant breast pain etiologies.

Efficient management of new patient referrals to a breast service: the safe introduction of an advanced nurse practitioner-led telephone breast pain service

INTRODUCTION

There has been an almost 100% increase in referrals to breast cancer diagnostic clinics in the past decade. Breaching of the two-week cancer referral target is now commonplace, potentially delaying diagnoses of breast malignancy in many women. Almost one in five of these referrals are women with mastalgia, not a symptom linked to breast cancer. The objective of the study was the safe introduction of an advanced nurse practitioner-led telephone service for women with mastalgia to improve the service for women and create capacity for those with "red flag" breast symptoms.

METHODS

Referrals to clinic were triaged, women with mastalgia only were directed to a telephone-based assessment clinic and symptoms evaluated using a multidisciplinary created proforma.

RESULTS

Within 23 months, 1,427 women were assessed in the breast pain telephone assessment clinic: 863 (61%) were aged over 40 and 564 (39%) aged under 40. A total of 1,238 underwent telephone assessment. Reassurance and discharge only was needed for 365 (26%). The aetiology of pain was identified as musculoskeletal in 1,104/1,238 (89%) of patients, with only 39/1,238 (3.2%) identified as having true breast pain. Additional symptoms were mentioned by 264 women (18%) during the consultation; all immediately redirected back to a diagnostic clinic. Mammography was undertaken in 609 women (43%). Seven women (0.6%) were diagnosed with a breast malignancy. Patient survey indicated that 93% of patients were satisfied with the care received and 97% said they would recommend the service to a family member or friend.

CONCLUSIONS

Although face-to-face assessments for breast pain remain the standard practice in many breast units, data indicating the safety of a telephone assessment clinic, along with high levels of patient satisfaction, question whether services can be delivered differently.

Challenges in Interpretation of US Breast Findings in the Emergency Setting

Emergencies in breast imaging are infrequent but not rare. Although infectious conditions such as mastitis and breast abscess are the most common breast diseases encountered in acute care settings, other entities that may require additional imaging or different treatment approaches are also seen and include traumatic injury and breast cancer. While mammography is widely available for breast evaluation in outpatient facilities, most emergency departments do not have mammography units. This makes evaluation of patients with breast disease incomplete in the acute care setting and emphasizes the role of appropriate US techniques for interpretation. It also highlights the importance of effective sonographer-to-radiologist communication to ensure patient safety and diagnostic accuracy, especially in an era of increasing adoption of teleradiology. The authors discuss the challenges in image acquisition and remote interpretation that are commonly faced by radiologists when they assess breast anomalies in the emergency setting. They present strategies to overcome these challenges by describing techniques for proper US evaluation, highlighting the importance of sonographer-radiologist communication, defining the goals of the evaluation, reviewing common differential diagnoses, and providing appropriate follow-up recommendations. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Patient-centered Care: Value Added by Breast Radiologists in the Management of Breast Pain

With the shift of the healthcare system toward patient-centered, value-based care, the role of the breast radiologist is essential and increasingly multifaceted. Beyond sole image interpreters, breast radiologists serve as subject matter experts within multidisciplinary care teams, acting as advocates and initiators into the healthcare system and providing patient-centered care through effective communication and patient education. These vital roles are well demonstrated through the imaging evaluation and management of the most common breast symptom that affects the majority of the patient population-mastalgia. By leveraging the opportunities provided during the evaluation of the symptomatic breast to optimize patient communication and education, as well as integration of care delivery, breast radiologists add significant value to patient care and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Concerns About Breast Pain: How Useful Is Imaging?

Background: Breast pain is one of the most common reasons for referral to breast imaging. Objectives: This study aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of mammography and sonomammography in women complaining of breast pain in a teaching hospital in Southeast Nigeria. Methods: This descriptive study analyzed the mammographic/sonomammographic images and records of 241 consecutive adult women aged 18 - 81 years with breast pain who presented to the radiology department over three years. A non-random sampling method was employed to select the participants. The extracted variables were patient’s age, positive clinical history of breast pain, laterality of breast pain, type of imaging, presence or absence of lesion, type, and laterality of lesions if present, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assignment of imaging findings on mammography and sonomammography. The descriptive analysis of continuous variables and inferential statistics of ordinal data were performed with Microsoft Excel and chi-squared test, respectively. In this study, P < 0.05 was set as the significance level. Results: Most women (20%) with a complaint of breast pain were in the 40 - 44-year age group. Moreover, 32.3%, 33.2%, and 34.4% of the participants had left-sided, right-sided, and bilateral breast pain, respectively. Among the participants, 118 and 123 women had mammography and sonomammography, respectively. Furthermore, 76.3% had normal findings on mammography or sonomammography, and only 23.7% had positive imaging findings on breast imaging. These lesions were mostly observed among the women in the age group of 45 - 49 years. Of those with lesions detected on imaging, 79.2% and 20.8% demonstrated benign and malignant attributes, respectively. Masses with definite benign attributes assigned BI-RADS II were mostly fibroadenomata and cysts. Inferential statistics indicated that unilateral mastalgia was more likely to be associated with a breast lesion, while bilateral mastalgia usually resulted in normal breast imaging findings. Conclusions: Women referring to the Radiology Department with a complaint of breast pain alone are unlikely to have any significant breast imaging finding; hence, imaging serves as a tool for assuaging the anxiety of these patients and reassuring the referring physician. Unilateral but not bilateral mastalgia is likely to yield positive imaging findings, which are largely benign.

No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic

BACKGROUND

Women with breast pain constitute >20% of breast clinic attendees.

AIM

To investigate breast cancer incidence in women presenting with breast pain and establish the health economics of referring women with breast pain to secondary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A prospective cohort study of all consecutive women referred to a breast diagnostic clinic over 12 months.

METHOD

Women were categorised by presentation into four distinct clinical groups and cancer incidence investigated.

RESULTS

Of 10 830 women, 1972 (18%) were referred with breast pain, 6708 (62%) with lumps, 480 (4%) with nipple symptoms, 1670 (15%) with 'other' symptoms. Mammography, performed in 1112 women with breast pain, identified cancer in eight (0.7%). Of the 1972 women with breast pain, breast cancer incidence was 0.4% compared with ∼5% in each of the three other clinical groups. Using 'breast lump' as reference, the odds ratio (OR) of women referred with breast pain having breast cancer was 0.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.09, P<0.001). Compared with reassurance in primary care, referral was more costly (net cost £262) without additional health benefits (net quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] loss -0.012). The greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was when QALY loss because of referral-associated anxiety was excluded. Primary care reassurance no longer dominated, but the ICER remained greater (£45 528/QALY) than typical UK National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that referring women with breast pain to a breast diagnostic clinic is an inefficient use of limited resources. Alternative management pathways could improve capacity and reduce financial burden.

Transforming the 2-week wait (2WW) pathway: management of breast pain in primary care

Breast pain has no association with breast cancer yet is a frequent reason for referral from Primary to Secondary Care, often on an urgent (2-week wait) referral. The referral often causes significant patient anxiety, further heightened by screening mammograms and/or ultrasound scans in the absence of an associated red flag symptom or finding by the patient or general practitioner. This paper reports the pilot implementation of a specialist Primary Care Breast Pain Clinic in Mid-Nottinghamshire where patients were seen, examined without any imaging and assessed for their risk of familial breast cancer: numerous studies have reported 15%–>30% of patients with breast pain only have a family history of breast cancer.

177 patients with breast pain only were seen in this clinic between March, 2020 and April, 2021 with a 6-month interim suspension due to COVID-19. The mean age of patients was 48.4 years (range: 16–86). 172/177 (97.2%) patients required no imaging although there were three (1.7%) inappropriate referrals and two additional abnormalities (1.1%—hamartoma, thickening/tethering) that were referred onward. There were no cancers. 21 (12.4%) patients were identified to have an increased familial risk of breast cancer and were referred to the specialist familial cancer service. 170/177 patients completed an anonymous questionnaire on leaving the clinic. 167/169 (99%) were reassured regarding their breast pain, 155/156 (99%) were reassured of the Familial Risk Assessment, 162/168 (96%) were reassured regarding their personal risk assessment while 169/170 (99%) were ‘extremely likely/likely to recommend the service’.

This specialist Primary Care Breast Pain Clinic provides service improvement across all levels of care (Primary, Secondary and Tertiary). Patients were successfully managed in the community with high levels of patient satisfaction and together this obviated referral to secondary care. The familial breast cancer risk assessment also helped identify unmet need in the community.

Symptomatic Breast Cancers and Why Breast Pain May not Always Need Clinical Review

Objective

Breast pain contributes a heavy burden to the symptomatic breast clinic, accounting for a large number of referrals due to patient/clinician subjective anxiety and unclear aetiology. We assess the link between breast pain and cancer with a view to easing the demand on breast services.

Materials and Methods

All new breast cancer diagnoses were identified from the multidisciplinary team outcomes for the 12 months between October 2017 and October 2018. Presenting symptoms were identified from the General Practice referrals and consultant letters. Examination findings were checked with details on imaging requests.

Results

436 new symptomatic cancer diagnoses were made in patients with a median age of 68 (range 25-97). 334 patients were referred by General Practice as two-week waits who formed the cohort selected for analysis (77%). New lumps accounted for 294 ipsilateral cancer diagnoses (88%), nipple symptoms for 28 (8%) and pain with normal examination for 12 (4%, all screening aged patients). All 12 cancers in the patients presenting with pain were correctly identified on mammography, including 4 cancers in the symptomatic breast and 8 Incidental cancers in the contralateral, non-symptomatic breast.

Conclusion

Pain does not appear to be frequent symptom of breast cancer presentation. It was more common for patients to have incidental, contralateral asymptomatic cancer than it was for patients with pain alone to have underlying ipsilateral cancer. In such cases, new cancers were identified accurately on mammography. Patients presenting with pain as an isolated symptom, having been carefully assessed in Primary Care, may yield little benefit in repeat clinical examination by a Breast Specialist. Direct to test with mammography could be safe, effective and efficient alternative practice.

A Review of Breast Pain: Causes, Imaging Recommendations, and Treatment

Over two-thirds of women will experience breast pain in their lifetime. As one of the leading breast symptoms for which women seek medical attention, breast pain is suspected to be underreported and under-studied. Cyclical breast pain is related to hormonal changes. Noncyclical breast pain is independent of the menstrual cycle and can be idiopathic and related to chronic pain syndromes, infections, ill-fitting bras, musculoskeletal abnormalities, pregnancy, perimenopause, and postsurgical causes. Breast pain can also present in transgender patients and may require additional considerations as to the underlying cause. Imaging of mastalgia depends upon the suspected etiology. Inappropriate imaging for breast pain is associated with significant utilization of health care resources. Cyclical breast pain does not require an imaging work-up. The work-up of focal, noncyclical breast pain includes ultrasound for women aged younger than 40 years, and mammography and ultrasound for women aged 40 years and older. Management of breast pain is often supportive, as most breast pain resolves spontaneously. If pain persists, imaging and management should follow a step-wise approach. If conservative measures fail, second-line therapy is topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. If breast pain is severe and resistant to conservative methods, additional third-line therapies can be added by breast care specialists with specific knowledge of the potential deleterious side effects of these medications. While the causes of mastalgia are overwhelmingly benign, breast pain can significantly impact quality of life, and the breast radiologist should be familiar with causes, management, and treatment recommendations from a multidisciplinary approach.

Current Management and Treatment Options for Breast Pain

Breast pain is a commonly experienced symptom in women of all ages and can significantly impact quality of life. Fear of cancer prompts many patients to report their pain, although risk for malignancy is low in the absence of a palpable mass or other abnormal finding on breast examination. All patients with breast pain should have a thorough history and physical examination to determine if diagnostic imaging is indicated. Management of breast pain without anatomic or radiographic abnormalities depends on pain type and severity. Often, no intervention is required. However, for women with pain that adversely impacts daily living, short-term therapies may be considered. For mild to moderate pain, a trial of conservative, nonpharmacologic strategies should be tried first. For those with severe symptoms impacting quality of life, a trial of pharmacologic therapy can be considered after appropriate counseling for medication-related adverse effects. Herein, we have provided a concise summary of a generalized approach to classification, assessment, and management of breast pain.

The Association of Breast Pain with Malignancy

OBJECTIVE

Breast pain is a common reason for imaging evaluation; however, the limited literature available suggests a low incidence of malignancy with isolated pain. The goal of this study is to calculate the risk of cancer in patients with breast pain, and to compare to the screening mammography cancer detection rates.

METHODS

This retrospective, institutional review board-approved study included all patients for whom a breast pain history sheet was filled out between November 3, 2013, and July 28, 2016. Those without at least two years of follow-up were excluded. From the medical record, any malignancy found at the site of pain at presentation or within two years was noted. Screening cancer detection rate was calculated from the mammography tracking software, and the Chi-square test was used to evaluate the significance of the difference between the cancer detection rates in patients with pain versus that detected by screening.

RESULTS

Of 421 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 4 (1.0%) had cancer at the site of pain, with a rate of malignancy of 9.5/1000 (95% CI: 3.5/1000 to 25.2/1000). The screening cancer detection rate was 7.3/1000 (P = 0.403), which was not significantly different. All cancers occurred in patients with coexisting palpable abnormalities; none was found when pain was the only symptom.

CONCLUSION

The rate of malignancy in patients with breast pain did not differ significantly from that detected by screening mammography. In patients with isolated breast pain without a palpable abnormality, there were no cases of malignancy. Imaging patients for the sole purpose of evaluating breast pain may not be necessary.

Breast pain and cancer: should we continue to work-up isolated breast pain?

PURPOSE

To assess the cancer detection rate (CDR) in patients presenting with isolated breast pain.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients presenting to a large tertiary care academic center or an affiliated hospital with isolated breast pain from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, pain characteristics, imaging findings, and outcome.

RESULTS

The study cohort was comprised of 971 exams in 953 patients, with a median age of 50 years. A total of 62.5% (607/971) of the cases were assessed by mammography and ultrasound, 24.4% (237/971) by ultrasound only, and 13.1% (127/971) by mammography only. Including the abnormalities detected in the asymptomatic breast, 88.7% (861/971) of the cases were negative or had benign findings (BI-RADS 1 and 2), 6.8% (66/971) were probably benign (BI-RADS 3), 3.9% (38/971) were suspicious (BI-RADS 4), and 0.6% (6/971) were highly suggestive of malignancy (BI-RADS 5). CDR on initial work-up was 0.8% (8/953), of which 0.6% (4/690) was in average-risk patients while 1.5% (4/263) was in higher-than-average risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CDR in patients presenting with isolated breast pain overall was low, comparable to the expected incidence of breast cancer in asymptomatic women. Work-up for isolated breast pain may therefore be unnecessary and lead to overutilization of healthcare resources. Routine screening mammography should be encouraged and higher-than-average risk patients may benefit from additional tests.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Pain

Breast pain is a common complaint. However, in the absence any accompanying suspicious clinical finding (eg, lump or nipple discharge), the association with malignancy is very low (0%-3.0%). When malignancy-related, breast pain tends to be focal (less than one quadrant) and persistent. Pain that is clinically insignificant (nonfocal [greater than one quadrant], diffuse, or cyclical) requires no imaging beyond what is recommended for screening. In cases of pain that is clinically significant (focal and noncyclical), imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and ultrasound are appropriate, depending on the patient's age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Focal breast pain: imaging evaluation and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To determine the number and characteristics of cancers detected and the optimal imaging evaluation in women presenting with focal breast pain (FBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 4720 women who underwent imaging for FBP from 2001 to 2013. Women 18 and over with one or two foci of breast pain and no concurrent breast symptoms were included. 944 patients met criteria. We recorded the imaging work-up, presence and type of finding at the site of pain, BI-RADS® assessment, and pathological outcomes. Subsequent imaging and clinical follow up was recorded.

RESULTS

Imaging evaluation consisted of sonogram alone in 286 women, mammogram alone in 231 women, and both in 427 women. 113 women had an imaging finding at the site of pain; 103 were designated benign or probably benign. 12 biopsies of corresponding findings were performed: 9 benign, 1 invasive lobular carcinoma, 1 invasive ductal carcinoma, 1 ductal carcinoma in situ. All three malignancies were seen mammographically; 2 had an ultrasound correlate. At initial evaluation, 4 incidental breast cancers were diagnosed remote from the site of FBP. All were seen on mammogram and 2 of 4 had an ultrasound correlate. On follow up evaluation, 9 cancers were diagnosed at the site of pain and 13 incidental cancers were diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

FBP is rarely associated with malignancy. Targeted ultrasound may be deferred in women 40 and older with FBP, no other clinical findings, and a negative mammogram.

Evaluation of 1294 Female Patients with Breast Pain: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Mastalgia, or breast pain, is one of the most important complaints referred to outpatient clinics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors causing mastalgia. All patients who presented to our clinic with complaints of mastalgia were assessed along with their type of mastalgia symptoms, menopausal status, and radiology results.

METHODS

A total of 3157 patients with mastalgia complaints visited our clinic between January 2015 and February 2018. Only 1294 of them were retrospectively screened. Age, sex, menopausal (premenopausal, postmenopausal) status, mastalgia type (cyclic, non-cyclic), and imaging findings of the patients were examined.

RESULTS

The mean age was 43.8 ± 11.8 (13-86) years, with 453 (35%) patients younger than 40 years and 841 (65%) older than 40. Cyclic mastalgia was found in 207 (16%) patients, and non-cyclic mastalgia was seen in 1087 (84%) patients. A total of 786 (60.7%) patients were premenopausal, and 508 (39.3%) were postmenopausal. Mammography was used in 545 (42.1%) patients; 1190 (92.0%) women had breast ultrasonography.

CONCLUSION

Although breast pain is a common symptom in women who are referred to breast outpatient clinics, we concluded that patients who complain of mastalgia should not be afraid of cancer. Despite this and for reassurance, clinical imaging may be necessary to alleviate these patients' suspicions.

To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Investigation of noncyclic mastalgia in women without signs or risk factors for cancer is controversial. An initial imaging strategy can diagnose breast cancer early, potentially leading to better treatment and survival. However, cancer diagnosis is very uncommon in these cases, and this approach can be harmful, as false positives or suspicion results will lead to unneeded interventions and follow-up. The purpose of this review is to analyse the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of initial imaging tests against clinical follow-up.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found seven relevant studies, all observational, with some methodological limitations and very low-quality evidence. They showed low breast cancer prevalence (around 1-2%, increasing with age), high sensitivity to rule out disease but moderate specificity to rule it in using mammography and echography, and lacked evidence on follow-up and final outcomes.

SUMMARY

There is a low prevalence of breast cancer in patients with painful breast with negative physical examination, and very little research to inform about the effect of performing or avoiding initial imaging test on outcomes of interest. With such limited evidence, only a weak recommendation to reinforce shared decision making about what should be done in the primary care setting can be made, with the backup of a specialized breast unit.

Mastalgia: Imaging Work-up Appropriateness

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiologists frequently image women with the sole complaint of mastalgia (breast pain). We hypothesized that whereas the vast majority of women ultimately have no imaging explanation for their breast pain, a small percentage of patients may have a correlative imaging finding and confirm the current American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective review, we evaluated 236 women between the ages of 18 and 83 years who presented to our Breast Care Center in 2013 with the sole complaint of breast pain or tenderness. Patients' clinical presentation, diagnostic imaging work-up, and clinical and radiographic follow-up were documented. Outcomes of the diagnostic work-up were compared with the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 236 patients, 10 women had cyclical breast pain, 116 had noncyclical, nonfocal breast pain, and 110 had noncyclical, focal breast pain. No imaging correlates were discovered to explain the etiology of cyclical pain, supporting the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria rating values. A definitive imaging correlate for breast pain was identified in seven women (3%) with noncyclical, focal pain, one of which was a cancer diagnosis (0.4%), which correlates with the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ratings. No imaging correlates were found in women with noncyclical, nonfocal pain, supporting the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria ratings.

CONCLUSION

There was no radiological imaging finding to explain the etiology of mastalgia in most women. Diagnostic imaging may be an appropriate diagnostic evaluation in patients with noncyclical, focal breast pain, supporting the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria recommendations.

Focal Breast Pain: Does Breast Density Affect the Need for Ultrasound?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the utility of directed ultrasound and digital mammogram for evaluating focal breast pain in women with different mammographic breast densities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective study included 413 cases of focal breast pain in 369 women (mean age 53 years). All cases were evaluated with both mammogram and ultrasound and had at least 2 years of imaging follow-up. Exclusion criteria were non-focal, axillary, or radiating pain; palpable or skin changes; pregnancy or lactation; and history of trauma or infection. Breast density, imaging findings, and biopsy results were recorded. Specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent (76 of 413) of cases demonstrated an imaging correlate. Of these, 74% (56 of 76) occurred in dense breasts and 26% (20 of 76) in nondense breasts. Seventy percent (14 of 20) of lesions in nondense breasts were seen with mammography and ultrasound, whereas 30% (6 of 20) were detected only with ultrasound. Of lesions detected in dense breasts, 29% (16 of 56) were seen with mammography and ultrasound, whereas 71% (40 of 56) were detected only with ultrasound. Thirty-one percent (24 of 76) of cases were biopsied, 42% (10 of 24) of which were detected by ultrasound only. No cancer was detected in initial workup. At 2-year follow-up, three women, all with dense breasts, developed cancer in the same quadrant as the initial pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Directed ultrasound, when performed in conjunction with digital mammography for the evaluation of focal breast pain in women with nondense breasts, is of low utility and may contribute to unnecessary intervention as a result of incidental findings.