Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offered to women in the general population with dense breasts can aid detection of small mammographically occult breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 0.8-10 cancers per 1000 women screened), although the overall PPV is low.

Purpose:To compare radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography versus digital mammography alone. Materials and Methods:Institutional review board approval was obtained at each accruing institution. Participating women gave written informed consent. Mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal digital mammographic and tomosynthesis images of both breasts were obtained from 1192 subjects. Two enriched reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone. Study 1 comprised 312 cases (48 cancer cases) with images read by 12 radiologists; study 2, 312 cases (51 cancer cases) with 15 radiologists. Study 1 readers recorded only that an abnormality requiring recall was present; study 2 readers had additional training and recorded both lesion type and location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Recall rates of noncancer cases, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values determined by analyzing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scores were compared for the two methods. Results:Diagnostic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone. Average difference in area under the curve in study 1 was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7%, 10.8%; P , .001) and in study 2 was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%, 9.5%; P , .001). All 27 radiologists increased diagnostic accuracy with addition of tomosynthesis. Recall rates for noncancer cases for all readers significantly decreased with addition of tomosynthesis (range, 6%-67%; P , .001 for 25 readers, P , .03 for all readers). Increased sensitivity was largest for invasive cancers: 15% and 22% in studies 1 and 2 versus 3% for in situ cancers in both studies. Conclusion:Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significantly increased diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduced recall rates for noncancer cases.q RSNA, 2012 Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup /suppl

The average lifetime risk of breast cancer for a woman in the United States has been estimated at 12.3% (ie, 1 in 8 women). 1 For 2018, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that 63,960 cases of female carcinoma in situ of the breast and 268,670 cases of invasive breast cancer (266,120 women and 2,550 men) will be diagnosed in the United States. 2 About 41,400 deaths are estimated for 2018. 3 The good news is that death rates have been falling on average NCCN

Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group.

Ultrasonography (US) is an indispensable tool in breast imaging and is complementary to both mammography and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast. Advances in US technology allow confident characterization of not only benign cysts but also benign and malignant solid masses. Knowledge and understanding of current and emerging US technology, along with the application of meticulous scanning technique, is imperative for image optimization and diagnosis. The ability to synthesize breast US findings with multiple imaging modalities and clinical information is also necessary to ensure the best patient care. US is routinely used to guide breast biopsies and is also emerging as a supplemental screening tool in women with dense breasts and a negative mammogram. This review provides a summary of current state-of-the-art US technology, including elastography, and applications of US in clinical practice as an adjuvant technique to mammography, MR imaging, and the clinical breast examination. The use of breast US for screening, preoperative staging for breast cancer, and breast intervention will also be discussed.

Benign or malignant papillary lesions were accurately diagnosed with SCNB in the majority of cases. Cases diagnosed as suspicious for malignancy or with atypia or unusual associated histologic findings should be excised. No malignancies were found at excision of radial scars diagnosed at SCNB. Surgical removal of these lesions following SCNB may not be routinely necessary. DCIS was found in one lesion diagnosed as LCIS at SCNB, which suggests that removal of these lesions may be prudent.

. Diagnosis of radial scar based on core needle biopsy is likely to be reliable when there is no associated atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy, when the biopsy includes at least 12 specimens, and when mammographic findings are reconciled with histologic findings. When the lesion diagnosed by core needle biopsy as radial scar does not meet these criteria, excisional biopsy is indicated.

No abstract