Breast radiologists’ perceptions on the detection and management of invasive lobular carcinoma: Most agree imaging beyond mammography is warranted Journal Article


Authors: Coffey, K.; Berg, W. A.; Dodelzon, K.; Jochelson, M. S.; Mullen, L. A.; Parikh, J. R.; Hutcheson, L.; Grimm, L. J.
Article Title: Breast radiologists’ perceptions on the detection and management of invasive lobular carcinoma: Most agree imaging beyond mammography is warranted
Abstract: Objective: To determine breast radiologists’ confidence in detecting invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) on mammography and the perceived need for additional imaging in screening and preoperative settings. Methods: A 16-item anonymized survey was developed, and IRB exemption obtained, by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and the Lobular Breast Cancer Alliance. The survey was emailed to 2946 radiologist SBI members on February 15, 2023. The survey recorded demographics, perceived modality-specific sensitivity for ILC to the nearest decile, and opinions on diagnosing ILC in screening and staging imaging. Five-point Likert scales were used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Results: Response rate was 12.4% (366/2946). Perceived median (interquartile range) modality-specific sensitivities for ILC were MRI 90% (80–90), contrast-enhanced mammography 80% (70–90), molecular breast imaging 80% (60–90), digital breast tomosynthesis 70% (60–80), US 60% (50–80), and 2D mammography 50% (30–60). Only 25% (85/340) respondents were confident in detecting ILC on screening mammography in dense breasts, while 67% (229/343) were confident if breasts were nondense. Most agreed that supplemental screening is needed to detect ILC in women with dense breasts (272/344, 79%) or a personal history of ILC (248/341, 73%), with 34% (118/334) indicating that supplemental screening would also benefit women with nondense breasts. Most agreed that additional imaging is needed to evaluate extent of disease in women with newly diagnosed ILC, regardless of breast density (dense 320/329, 97%; nondense 263/329, 80%). Conclusion: Most breast radiologists felt that additional imaging beyond mammography is needed to more confidently screen for and stage ILC. © Society of Breast Imaging 2024.
Keywords: controlled study; treatment response; preoperative care; cancer staging; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; cancer diagnosis; sensitivity and specificity; cancer screening; health survey; patient care; radiologist; mammography; clinical evaluation; physician attitude; breast ultrasound; managed care; medical history; breast magnetic resonance imaging; digital mammography; breast density; demographics; private practice; human; female; article; likert scale; two-dimensional imaging; contrast-enhanced mammography; digital breast tomosynthesis; contrast enhanced mammography; invasive lobular breast carcinoma; breast imaging education and training; breast mri clinical applications; mammography including tomosynthesis; molecular breast imaging
Journal Title: Journal of Breast Imaging
Volume: 6
Issue: 2
ISSN: 2631-6110
Publisher: Oxford University Press  
Date Published: 2024-03-01
Start Page: 157
End Page: 165
Language: English
DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbad112
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC10983784
PUBMED: 38340343
DOI/URL:
Notes: The MSK Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) is acknowledged in the PDF -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Maxine Jochelson
    134 Jochelson