In this small study, mass characterization in terms of visibility ratings, reader performance, and BI-RADS assessment with DBT was similar to that with MSVs. Preliminary findings suggest that MSV might not be necessary for mass characterization when performing DBT.

Context.— Preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions using image-guided wire placement has been a standard of breast imaging, diagnosis, and treatment since its development in the 1970s. With this technique, coordinated, same-day wire placement by the radiologist and surgery are required, which can lead to significant inefficiencies in workflow. Other disadvantages of wire localization (WL) include limitations in surgical incision and dissection route and protruding wires that can be both bothersome for the patient and have risk of displacement. Objective.— To outline several recently developed techniques that could replace traditional WL and eliminate its disadvantages. The first developed was radioactive seed localization (RSL) using I-125, a technique adopted by many institutions during the last few years. The challenge to this method, however, is the strict nuclear regulatory requirements, which can be a significant burden and limitation. The disadvantages of WL and RSL have provided incentive for the development of other types of preoperative localization procedures. Two of these are recently US Food and Drug Administration–cleared, nonradioactive, non-wire location technologies emerging as alternatives to WL and RSL; SAVI SCOUT (Cianna Medical Inc, Aliso Viejo, California), which uses infrared light and a microimpulse radar reflector, and Magseed (Endomagnetics Inc, Austin, Texas), which uses a magnetic seed for localization. Data Sources.— We review the published literature on non-wire location technologies for breast tissue resection. Conclusions.— Non-wire location techniques are beneficial, allowing image-guided placement before the day of surgery and resulting in improved workflows. These techniques also eliminate bothersome protruding wires, risk of dislodging, and allow the incision site to be independent from the localization site.

Among lactating and pregnant women, both mammography and sonography had a negative predictive value of 100% and accurately revealed the few cancers that were present in our study group.

Purpose To examine how often screening mammography depicts clinically occult malignancy in breast reconstruction with autologous myocutaneous flaps (AMFs). Materials and Methods Between January 1, 2000, and July 15, 2015, the authors retrospectively identified 515 women who had undergone mammography of 618 AMFs and who had at least 1 year of clinical follow-up. Of the 618 AMFs, 485 (78.5%) were performed after mastectomy for cancer and 133 (21.5%) were performed after prophylactic mastectomy. Medical records were used to determine the frequency, histopathologic characteristics, presentation, time to recurrence, and detection modality of malignancy. Cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false-positive biopsy rate were calculated. Results An average of 6.7 screening mammograms (range, 1-16) were obtained over 15.5 years. The frequency of local-regional recurrence (LRR) was 3.9% (20 of 515 women; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2%, 5.6%); all LRRs were invasive, and none were detected in the breast mound after prophylactic mastectomy. Of the 20 women with LRR, 13 (65%) were screened annually before the diagnosis. Seven of those 13 women (54%) had clinically occult LRR, and mammography depicted five. Five of the six clinically evident recurrences (83%) were interval cancers. The median time between reconstruction and first recurrence was 4.4 years (range, 0.8-16.2 years). The CDR per AMF was 1.5 per 1000 screening mammograms (five of 3358; 95% CI: 0.18, 2.8) after mastectomy for cancer and 0 of 1000 examinations (0 of 805 mammograms; 95% CI: 0, 5) after prophylactic mastectomy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false-positive biopsy rate were 42% (five of 12), 99.4% (4125 of 4151), 16% (five of 31), and 0.6% (26 of 4151), respectively. Conclusion The CDR of screening mammography (1.5 per 1000 screening mammograms) of the AMF after mastectomy for cancer is comparable to that for one native breast of an age-matched woman. Screening mammography adds little value after prophylactic mastectomy. © RSNA, 2018.