Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a noninvasive method that reveals anatomical details in vivo and detects lesions for diagnosis. Although standard breast MRI cannot clearly delineate breast cancer, contrast-enhanced MRI enables the detection of breast masses with high sensitivity. Dynamic studies demonstrated that malignant lesions were characterized by a faster signal enhancement rate than benign ones. Dynamic MRI of human breast cancer in mice revealed high heterogeneity in the distribution of contrast-enhanced curves and derived pathophysiological features, indicating the importance of high spatial resolution. With clinical MRI, it is difficult to achieve simultaneously high spatial and temporal resolution. In previous dynamic studies, the emphasis was on high temporal resolution and mainly empiric analyses. We describe here a new model-based method that optimizes spatial resolution by using only three time points, and yet characterizes tumor heterogeneity in terms of microvascular permeability and extracellular fraction. Mapping these pathophysiological features may aid diagnosis and prognosis assessment, while the high spatial resolution may improve the capacity to detect smaller lesions. The method was tested in human breast tumors implanted in mice and in a limited number of benign and malignant breast lesions of patients.

Streamlined BRCA screening results in high uptake, very high satisfaction, and no excess psychosocial harm. Proactive recruitment captured older women less selected for FH. Further research is necessary to target younger women and assess other populations.Genet Med advance online publication 08 December 2016.

The capability of three-time-point, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to depict vascular permeability and extracellular volume fraction of breast fibroadenoma was evaluated with histopathologic correlation. This method demonstrated an even distribution of high extracellular volume fraction and low to moderate microvascular permeability in these common breast lesions, providing a nonsurgical means of improving the accuracy of diagnosis of fibroadenoma.

The documented incidence of pain associated with screening mammography varies from 1% to 62%. Some researchers suggest that pain may undermine compliance with screening mammography. As a part of a quality improvement project, we have surveyed women undergoing mammography in 2 centers in Jerusalem to identify the prevalence, severity, and duration of mammography-associated pain, demographic risk factors, and the degree that this may undermine compliance with breast cancer screening. A 23-item questionnaire was administered to 399 women (32% at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center [SZMC] and 68% at the Rachel Nash Comprehensive Breast Clinic [HALA]). Of the total, 77% of the women reported that the procedure was painful. Of those reporting pain, 60% described pain intensity as moderate or severe. In 67%, the pain resolved within 10 minutes. By univariate analysis, the only significant predictor for pain during mammography was cyclic breast pain (P = 0.053). No significant correlation was identified for age, breast size, pre-mammography counseling, and examination center (SZMC vs. HALA). The prevalence of pre-mammography counseling or explanation was low (51%). Despite that, 61% of the respondents expected that mammography would be painful. Indeed, most of those who anticipated pain reported that the actual severity was not greater than the anticipated severity. Even among women who reported pain of moderate or greater severity, less than 5% expressed preference to receive pre-emptive analgesia prior to their next mammogram. A substantial minority of women acknowledged that the experience of their mammography invoked reactions that may impend future compliance; 26% reported anxiety and 12% reported pain as factors that may interfere with ongoing compliance with regular mammographic screening. These data serve to emphasize the need for appropriate pre-test counseling and suggest a possible role for post-test debriefing to address those factors which may interfere with future test compliance.

No abstract