Background:Approximately 4% of patients diagnosed with early breast cancer have occult metastases at presentation. Current national and international guidelines lack consensus on whom to image and how.Methods:We assessed practice in baseline radiological staging against local guidelines for asymptomatic newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to the Cambridge Breast Unit over a 9-year period.Results:A total of 2612 patients were eligible for analysis; 91.7% were appropriately investigated. However in the subset of lymph node negative stage II patients, only 269 out of 354 (76.0%) investigations were appropriate. No patients with stage 0 or I disease had metastases; only two patients (0.3%) with stage II and ⩽3 positive lymph nodes had metastases. Conversely, 2.2, 2.6 and 3.8% of these groups had false-positive results. The incidence of occult metastases increased by stage, being present in 6, 13.9 and 57% of patients with stage II (⩾4 positive lymph nodes), III and IV disease, respectively.Conclusion:These results prompted us to propose new local guidelines for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients: only clinical stage III or IV patients require baseline investigation. The high specificity and convenience of computed tomography (chest, abdomen and pelvis) led us to recommend this as the investigation of choice in breast cancer patients requiring radiological staging.

ABSTRACT. An increasing number of breast lesions are being detected incidentally on CT. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of referrals to the breast unit for assessment of lesions identified on CT and the resulting yield of previously undiagnosed breast malignancies from this pathway. A retrospective review was undertaken of CT examinations conducted over a period of 14 years. All patients (with no previous history of breast cancer) whose report contained the keyword ''breast'' and who were referred to a specialist breast unit for assessment were reviewed. CT lesion morphology and enhancement pattern were identified and compared with the final diagnostic outcome. 70 patients were identified by retrospective analysis, yielding 78 incidental breast lesions, of which 22 (28.2%) were malignant (category B5). This gave a positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy of 28.2%. The best morphological predictor of malignancy was spiculation (PPV, 76%) and irregularity (PPV, 58%), whereas calcification patterns (PPV, 36%) were diagnostically unhelpful. Malignant lesions were likely to be larger (mean, 28.5 mm) than benign lesions (mean, 20.2 mm; p,0.05). In conclusion, 30% of incidental breast lesions in this large series of patients proved to be unsuspected breast cancers, particularly irregular spiculated masses. Referral for formal triple assessment of CT-diagnosed breast lesions is worthwhile, and careful examination of the breast should be a routine part of CT examinations.

Background:A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to breast cancer management is the gold standard. The aim is to evaluate MDT decision making in a modern breast unit.Methods:All referrals to the breast MDT where breast cancer was diagnosed from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011 were included. Multidisciplinary team decisions were compared with subsequent patient management and classified as concordant or discordant.Results:Over the study period, there were 3230 MDT decisions relating to 705 patients. Overall, 91.5% (2956 out of 3230) of decisions were concordant, 4.5% (146 out of 3230), were discordant and 4% (128 out of 3230) had no MDT decision. Of 146 discordant decisions, 26 (17.8%) were considered ‘unjustifiable' as there was no additional information available after the MDT to account for the change in management. The remaining 120 discordant MDT decisions were considered ‘justifiable', as management was altered due to patient choice (n=61), additional information available after MDT (n=54) or MDT error (n=5).Conclusion:The vast majority of MDT decisions are implemented. Management alteration was most often due to patient choice or additional information available after the MDT. A minority of management alterations were ‘unjustifiable' and the authors recommend that any patient whose treatment is subsequently changed should have MDT rediscussion prior to treatment.

Objective: The combination of mammography and/or ultrasound remains the mainstay in current breast cancer diagnosis. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reliability of standard breast imaging and individual radiologist performance and to explore ways that this can be improved. Methods: A total of 16 603 separate assessment episodes were undertaken on 13 958 patients referred to a specialist symptomatic breast clinic over a 6 year period. Each mammogram and ultrasound was reported prospectively using a five-point reporting scale and compared with final outcome. Results: Mammographic sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating curve (ROC) area were 66.6%, 99.7% and 0.83, respectively. The sensitivity of mammography improved dramatically from 47.6 to 86.7% with increasing age. Overall ultrasound sensitivity, specificity and ROC area was 82.0%, 99.3% and 0.91, respectively. The sensitivity of ultrasound also improved dramatically with increasing age from 66.7 to 97.1%. Breast density also had a profound effect on imaging performance, with mammographic sensitivity falling from 90.1 to 45.9% and ultrasound sensitivity reducing from 95.2 to 72.0% with increasing breast density. Conclusion: The sensitivity ranges widely between radiologists (53.1-74.1% for mammography and 67.1-87.0% for ultrasound). Reporting sensitivity was strongly correlated with radiologist experience. Those radiologists with less experience (and lower sensitivity) were relatively more likely to report a cancer as indeterminate/ uncertain. To improve radiology reporting performance, the sensitivity of cancer reporting should be closely monitored; there should be regular feedback from needle biopsy results and discussion of reporting classification with colleagues.