Specialized Second Opinion Review of Breast MRI Impacts Management and Increases Cancer Detection

How to prepare for a bright future of radiology in Europe

Because artificial intelligence (AI)-powered algorithms allow automated image analysis in a growing number of diagnostic scenarios, some healthcare stakeholders have raised doubts about the future of the entire radiologic profession. Their view disregards not only the role of radiologists in the diagnostic service chain beyond reporting, but also the many multidisciplinary and patient-related consulting tasks for which radiologists are solicited. The time commitment for these non-reporting tasks is considerable but difficult to quantify and often impossible to fulfil considering the current mismatch between workload and workforce in many countries. Nonetheless, multidisciplinary, and patient-centred consulting activities could move up on radiologists' agendas as soon as AI-based tools can save time in daily routine. Although there are many reasons why AI will assist and not replace radiologists as imaging experts in the future, it is important to position the next generation of European radiologists in view of this expected trend. To ensure radiologists' personal professional recognition and fulfilment in multidisciplinary environments, the focus of training should go beyond diagnostic reporting, concentrating on clinical backgrounds, specific communication skills with referrers and patients, and integration of imaging findings with those of other disciplines. Close collaboration between the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and European national radiologic societies can help to achieve these goals. Although each adequate treatment begins with a correct diagnosis, many health politicians see radiologic procedures mainly as a cost factor. Radiologic research should, therefore, increasingly investigate the imaging impact on treatment and outcome rather than focusing mainly on technical improvements and diagnostic accuracy alone.Critical relevance statement Strategies are presented to prepare for a successful future of the radiologic profession in Europe, if AI-powered tools can alleviate the current reporting overload: engaging in multidisciplinary activities (clinical and integrative diagnostics), enhancing the value and recognition of radiologists' role through clinical expertise, focusing radiological research on the impact on diagnosis and outcome, and promoting patient-centred radiology by enhancing communication skills.Key points • AI-powered tools will not replace radiologists but hold promise to reduce the current reporting burden, enabling them to reinvest liberated time in multidisciplinary clinical and patient-related tasks.• The skills and resources for these tasks should be considered when recruiting and teaching the next generation of radiologists, when organising departments and planning staffing.• Communication skills will play an increasing role in both multidisciplinary activities and patient-centred radiology.• The value and importance of a correct and integrative diagnosis and the cost of an incorrect imaging diagnosis should be emphasised when discussing with non-medical stakeholders in healthcare.• The radiologic community in Europe should start now to prepare for a bright future of the profession for the benefit of patients and medical colleagues alike.

Variations and Challenges to Performing Outside Study Interpretations in Breast Imaging: A National Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging Membership

OBJECTIVE

Second-opinion interpretations of outside facility breast imaging provide value-added care but are operationally challenging for breast radiologists. Our objective was to survey members of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) to assess practice patterns and perceived barriers to performing outside study interpretations (OSIs).

METHODS

An anonymous survey was developed by the Patient Care and Delivery Committee of the SBI and distributed via e-mail to SBI radiologist members. Survey questions included practice demographics and OSI volumes, billing practices, clinical scenarios, and imaging modalities, logistics, and barriers. Responses were aggregated and comparisons were made by univariate analysis using likelihood ratio tests, t-tests, and Spearman's rank correlation tests as appropriate. Ordinal or nominal logistic modeling and linear regression modeling was also performed.

RESULTS

There were 371 responses (response rate of 13%). Most respondents practice at an affiliated specialty breast care center (306/371, 83%) and said their practice performed OSIs (256/371, 69%). Academic practices reported the highest OSI volumes (median 75 per month) and were most likely to indicate increases in OSI volumes over time (100/144, 69%). The most common indication for OSI was second opinion for a biopsy recommendation (245/256, 96%). Most practices provide a final BI-RADS assessment (183/261, 70%). The most cited barrier to performing OSIs was physician time constraints (252/369, 68%).

CONCLUSION

Breast imaging OSI practice patterns are variable among SBI members with notable differences by practice setting and multiple barriers identified. More unified guidelines and recommendations may be needed for radiologists to better perform this valuable task.

Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations

Purpose

Second opinion consultation for patients with suspicious findings on breast imaging and patients with known breast cancer is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency of second opinion breast and axillary ultrasound imaging review and the subsequent impact on clinical management.

Materials and Methods

An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on 400 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialized breast radiologists at a designated cancer center, including mammogram and ultrasound review. The outside institution imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize ultrasound review discrepancies which were defined as any BI-RADS category change. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and added cancer detection were measured.

Results

The second opinion imaging review resulted in discrepant findings in 108/400 patients (27%). Patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts had higher discrepancy frequency (36% discrepancy, 68/187) than those with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast tissue (19% discrepancy, 40/213) with P = 0.0001. Discrepancies resulted in the following changes in impression/recommendations: 70 repeat ultrasounds for better characterization of a breast lesion, 11 repeat ultrasounds of a negative region, 20 repeat ultrasounds for benign axillary lymph nodes, 5 downgrades from probably benign to benign, and 2 upgrades from benign to suspicious. Repeat ultrasounds of the axilla in 19 patients resulted in 13 biopsy recommendations, and 4 were metastatic (PPV3 31%). In the breast, repeat ultrasounds in 81 patients resulted in 14 upgrades to suspicious. Of these, 5 yielded malignancy. In addition, one patient was upgraded from benign to suspicious based on the outside image, with pathology revealing malignancy (breast PPV3 40%). Breast lesion BI-RADS category downgrades in 27 patients resulted in 10 avoided biopsies. Ultimately, second opinion ultrasound review resulted in altered management in 12% of patients (47/400). This included discovery of additional breast malignancies in 6 patients, metastatic lymph nodes in 4 patients, excisional biopsy for atypia in 1 patient, 4 patients proceeding to mastectomy, 10 patients who avoided biopsies, and 22 patients who avoided follow-up of benign findings.

Conclusions

In this study, subspecialized second opinion ultrasound review had an impact on preventing unnecessary procedures and follow-up exams in 8% of patients while detecting additional cancer in 2.5%.

Transfer patient imaging: discordances between community and subspecialist emergency radiologists

PURPOSE

To determine the rate and nature of significant discordances between community and subspecialist emergency radiologists' interpretations of cross-sectional exams performed on patients transferred to our trauma center.

METHODS

Outside hospital CT and MRI exams performed on transfer trauma patients are routinely overread by subspecialist emergency radiologists, specifying either concordance or discordance with the interpretation by the community radiologist. We evaluated the discordant reports for clinical significance, defined as an additional finding or difference in interpretation which was likely to affect patient management. The total rate of significant discordances, rate by modality, rate by body region, and rate per patient transferred were calculated. The most common errors were identified, and the distribution of errors among individual community radiologists was examined.

RESULTS

9175 exams were reviewed. Significant discordances were encountered in 4.1% of exams: 3.9% for CT and 6.7% for MRI; 5.1% for head and neck exams, 3.3% for spine, 3.8% for torso, and 2.9% for extremities. The discordance rate per patient transferred was 7.7%. The most common discordances involved missing injuries to the cranio-cervical junction, missing or misinterpreting vascular injuries in the neck, and incompletely characterizing facial fractures. Discordances were evenly spread among 220 community radiologists.

CONCLUSION

There is frequent discordance between community and emergency radiologists' interpretations of CT and MRI exams, leading to a change in transferred patient management. Thus, trauma center radiologists provide added value overreading these patients' exams. It is difficult to predict which patients or exams will contain discordances, justifying routine overreading of all such exams.

The Radiologist's Role in a Breast Multidisciplinary Tumor Board

Breast multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) play an important role in determining treatment. This article serves as a guide for the radiologist participating in a breast MTB, as the information presented at MTB can significantly influence treatment plans and dictate future steps for further patient work-up. Multidisciplinary tumor board preparation involves a careful review of the patient's history while gathering all relevant imaging studies, and reinterpreting them when appropriate. Presented images should be carefully selected, annotated, and displayed clearly before providing final recommendations for localization and incompletely assessed findings. Anatomic staging factors from the AJCC Breast Cancer Staging System, such as tumor size and degree of suspected skin involvement, should be described. In addition, there are many other types of information that the treatment specialists want to know. The surgeon is interested in anatomic information that will help them decide whether breast conservation therapy is feasible or if local structures, such as the nipple, can be spared. The radiation oncologist may need to know whether accelerated partial breast irradiation is feasible or if postmastectomy radiation therapy is indicated. The medical oncologist is looking for factors that may provide an indication for neoadjuvant therapy and ensuring there is a reliable follow-up method for evaluating the response to treatment, such as comparative MRI. Additionally, all specialists need to know the extent of suspected nodal involvement. By clearly and comprehensively presenting this information to the rest of the MTB team, the radiologist provides a vital contribution that guides treatment and ensures adherence to clinical guidelines.