O1 The role of nomograms in predicting axillary node metastasis in breast cancer patients: a comparison between two online predictors and post-operative results
Ameerah Mohd Azmil1, Gaurav Jyoti Bansal2, Eleri Davies2
1Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; 2The Breast Centre, University Hospital of Llandough, Cardiff, UK
Correspondence: Ameerah Mohd Azmil
O2 Does preoperative axillary staging lead to overtreatment of women with screen detected cancer?
Matthew Wallis1, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin1, Sian Taylor-Phillip2
1Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge, UK; 2University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Matthew Wallis
O3 A comparison of interval breast cancers before and after the introduction of digital screening mammography
Jennifer Ferguson2, Guy Stevens1, Robert Hills2, Kate Gower Thomas1
1Breast Test Wales, Cardiff, UK; 2Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
Correspondence: Jennifer Ferguson
O4 The value of routine screening mammography in women aged 35-39 years in a symptomatic breast unit
Anne Buckley, Nuala Healy, Aine Quinn, Sylvia O'Keeffe
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Correspondence: Anne Buckley
O5 NHSBSP Prevalent Round Survey: Can we get the recall rate down?
Sabrina Rajan, Nisha Sharma
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Correspondence: Sabrina Rajan
O6 Visual assessment of breast density: intra- and inter-observer variability in visual analogue scale scores
Teri Ang1, Anthony Maxwell2,3, Yit Y Lim2, Elaine Harkness2,3, Richard Emsley4, Susan Astley2,3, Soujanya Gadde2
1Manchester Medical School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 2Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK; 3Centre for Imaging Sciences, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 4Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Teri Ang
PB.1 Performance and accuracy of pre-operative ultrasound evaluation of axillary lymph nodes in patients with invasive breast cancer
Ajit Kishore, John O’ Dowd, Claire Murphy, Ken Lindsay, Guneesh Dadayal
Airedale General Hospital, Keighley/West Yorkshire, UK
Correspondence: Guneesh Dadayal
PB.2 Preoperative sentinel lymph node identification, biopsy and localization using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in patients with breast cancer, a systematic review and meta-analysis
Anne Nielsen Moody1, Madeleine Whitaker1, Stephen Wolstenhulme1, Jane Bull2, Nisha Sharma1, Anne-Marie Culpan2
1Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK; 2University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Correspondence: Anne Nielsen Moody
PB.3 Radiological staging of the axilla: a mixed response?
Natalia Roszkowski, Alexis Grima, Michaela Stahnke, Caroline Rubin, Ruth Walker, Rachel Oeppen
University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
Correspondence: Natalia Roszkowski
PB.4 Axillary scanning at a District General Hospital (DGH) symptomatic breast clinic (SBC) - Audit and review
Srikanth Puttagunta, Karen Gray
Hairmyres Hospital, Lanarkshire, UK
Correspondence: Srikanth Puttagunta
-
179 patients after exclusions with 93 cancer cases.
-
Target result: US sensitivity = 63 .2 % (RCR target > 50% sensitivity)
-
96.8% of all malignant cases had their axilla scanned at initial presentation
-
79.5 % Agreement between US and histopathology
-
This review suggests appropriate scanning of the axilla at this DGH SBC.
-
Regular assessment of sensitivity and frequency of axillary scanning still recommended.
-
Recommended local improvement of focusing towards performing US in all microcalcification cases- to look for an invasive focus for US biopsy (rather than stereotactic) with axillary scanning at the same time.
PB.5 Axillary tumour burden in women with early breast cancer and 1 abnormal node on ultrasound scan compared with those with 2 or more abnormal nodes
Shama Puri1, Nisha Sharma2, Rebecca Millican-Slater2, Sana Pascaline3, Mohamad Hajaj3, Janet Flinn4, Kim Thomson4, Beatrix Elsberger4, Anne Turnbull1, Mark Bagnall1, Joanne York1, Stuart Benney1, Amit Goyal1
1Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK; 2Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK; 3Kettering General Hospital, Kettering, UK; 4Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, UK
Correspondence: Shama Puri
PB.6 Preoperative axillary staging in breast cancer: a comparison of the sensitivity of fine needle aspiration biopsy and core needle biopsy
Ashley Topps1, Simon Barr1, Panagiotis Pikoulas1, Susan Pritchard1, Anthony Maxwell1,2
1University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 2University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Ashley Topps
PB.7 Potential impact of implementing new ABS guidelines for management of patients with Axillary nodal metastasis on Sentinel Lymph Node biopsy
Sophie Greenhalgh2, Muthyala Sreenivas1
1University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK; 2Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Sophie Greenhalgh
PB.8 Outcomes of patients with Ultrasound detected lymph node metastasis: Are we over-treating the axilla?
Sophie Greenhalgh1, Muthyala Sreenivas2
1Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK; 2University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Sophie Greenhalgh
PB.9 The use of nomograms to predict additional lymph node metastasis after Sentinel lymph node biopsy: Can they reliably identify those needing no further axillary treatment?
Sophie Greenhalgh1, Muthyala Sreenivas2
1Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK; 2University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Sophie Greenhalgh
PB.10 Is MRI necessary in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma and fatty breasts?
Anju Nandhra, Sheetal Sharma
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Gateshead, Gateshead, UK
Correspondence: Anju Nandhra
PB.11 Is the final post Neoadjuvant chemotherapy MRI scans prior to surgery necessary in patient management in breast cancer?
Archita Gulati1,2, Furhan Razzaq2
1Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK; 2North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington, UK
Correspondence: Archita Gulati
PB.13 Additional significant findings in pre-operative breast MRI in patients with histologically proven breast carcinoma- our experience in one year
Sana Khan1,2, Jacqueline McKillen1
1Ulster Hospital, Belfast, UK; 2Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, Belfast, UK
Correspondence: Sana Khan
PB.14 Monitoring response in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy - a single institution experience
Rupert Larkin1, Muthyala Sreenivas2
1Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK; 2University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Rupert Larkin
PB.15 Comparison of digital mammography, ultrasound and MRI in the preoperative size assessment of lobular breast cancer: A district general hospital experience
Sachin Kamat1, Carla Goncalves2, Alan Tan2, Asha Eleti2, Nithya Vidyaprakash2
1Norfolk and Norwich Univerisity Hospital, Norwich, UK; 2Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK
Correspondence: Sachin Kamat
PB.16 Pragmatic use of breast MRI in pre-operative planning
Michelle A McMahon, Barbara JG Dall, Nisha Sharma
The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Correspondence: Barbara JG Dall
PB.17 Feasibility of utilising FAST protocol for clients undergoing NHSBSP high risk MRI scans
Faisal Majid, Muthyala Sreenivas, Ramachadra Rattehalli, Vandana Gaur
UHCW NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Faisal Majid
PB.20 Characterisation of cancers from digital mammograms from a large scale database: size, conspicuity and appearance
Alistair Mackenzie1, Lucy Warren1, Mishal Patel1, Mark Halling-Brown1, Louise Wilkinson2, Kenneth Young1,4, James Tanner3, Matthew Wallis3
1Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK; 2St George's Hospital, London, UK; 3Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; 4University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Correspondence: Alistair Mackenzie
PB.21 Improvement in cancer detection rates following replacement of older digital mammography equipment with new digital
Rachael Currie, Sharron Balyes, Julie Wragg, Georgiana Zamfir
InHealth Breast Screening, North and East Devon, UK
Correspondence: Rachael Currie
PB.22 Does the mammographic spicule size improve correlation with histological size in invasive breast cancer?
Pallavi Ayra, Max Marsden, James Butterworth, Shona Sinha, Anil Desai, Anna Metafa
Princess Royal University Hospital, Orpington, UK
Correspondence: Pallavi Ayra
PB.23 Systematic review comparing breast cancer detection of contrast enhanced spectral mammography with full field digital mammography
Madeleine Whitaker1, Anne Nielsen-Moody1, Stephen Wolstenhulme1, Nisha Sharma1, Jane Bull2
1St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK; 2University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Correspondence: Madeleine Whitaker
PB.24 Effect of parenchymal pattern in women with dense breasts, variation with age and impact on screening outcomes - observations from a UK screening programme
Laura Ward, Samantha Heller, Sue Hudson, Louise Wilkinson
St George's Hospital, London, UK
Correspondence: Louise Wilkinson
PB.25 Presentation and follow up of mammographically occult breast cancer: a multicentre audit of 5 years presentation with minimum 5 years follow up
Kathryn Taylor1, Argyro Xyda3, Anne Turnbull2, Steven Allen4, Elizabeth Orlowski1, Joanne York2, Kate Downey4, Richard Sidebottom5, Matthew Wallis1
1Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK; 2Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK; 3Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK; 4Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; 5John Ratcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Correspondence: Kathryn Taylor
PB.26 Mammographic density changes over two screening rounds: Effect of BMI, menopausal status and HRT use
Ahmad Lodhi1, Elaine Harkness1,2, Anthony Maxwell1,2, Anthony Howell1,2, Gareth Evans1,2, Soujanya Gadde2, Susan Astley1,2, Yit Lim1,2
1University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 2The Nightingale Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Ahmad Lodhi
PB.27 How new readers perform as compared to more experienced readers on the PERFORMS scheme
Yan Chen
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
PB.28 Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) - is it as sensitive as breast MRI in the detection of breast lesions?
Elizabeth Lepine-Williams
Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
PB.29 Image versus imaging: Do breast implants compromise cancer detection at screening?
Steven Henderson1,2, Janet Litherland1,2
1NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK; 2West of Scotland Breast Screening Programme, Glasgow, UK
Correspondence: Steven Henderson
PB.30 Correlation of radiological and pathological findings in breast implants – how accurate are imaging appearances?
Naveed Altaf, Yvonne Bury, Nerys Forester
RVI, Newcastle, UK
Correspondence: Naveed Altaf
PB.31 Correlation of symptoms with breast implant rupture
Mei Chan Chin, Janet Litherland
NHS GGC, Glasgow, UK
Correspondence: Mei Chan Chin
PB.32 A retrospective review of recalls from an NHSBSP high risk MRI screening programme
Caroline Taylor, Pippa Skippage, Aneet Sian, Rita McAvinchey
Jarvis Breast Screening Centre, Guildford, UK
Correspondence: Caroline Taylor
PB.33 A 15 year review of familial breast cancer screening in Wales - are we offering the right test to the right women?
Tom Evans2, Guy Stevens1, Sian Nisbet3, Alex Murray3, Kate Gower Thomas1
1Breast Test Wales, Cardiff, UK; 2Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; 3All Wales Cancer Genetics Service, Cardiff, UK
Correspondence: Tom Evans
PB.34 Management and future risk of malignancy in patients diagnosed with Lobular Neoplasia In Situ (LNIS)
Raquel Clark Castillo1, Hannah Markham1,2, Rachel Oeppen2
1University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; 2University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
Correspondence: Raquel Clark Castillo
PB.35 The changing risk factor profile of Asian women with breast cancer
Timothy Iype Thomas1, Anil Jain1,3, Jaanilka Molderson1, Joseph Wan2
1The Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK; 2The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 3Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Timothy Thomas
PB.36 A survey of radiographer film reader's perceptions of workload, performance and job satisfaction in the NHSBSP
Helen Newman
Chelmsford & Colchester Breast Screening Department, Essex, UK
PB.37 Time to actual assessment: A true performance indicator?
Simon Lowes, Linsley Lunt
Breast Screening Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
Correspondence: Simon Lowes
PB.39 Outcome of assessment of patient reported symptoms during screening mammograms - Single NHS BSP unit's experience
Sadia Sultana, Varun Chillal, Muthyala Sreenivas
University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
Correspondence: Sadia Sultana
PB.40 The association between regional disposable household income and uptake of breast screening in England between 1999 and 2014
Rebecca Dalton1, David Reeves2, Jamie Sergeant3,4, Elaine Harkness5,6, Soujanya Gadde6, Anthony Maxwell5,6, Yit Lim6, Susan Astley5,6
1Manchester Medical School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 2Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 3Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 4NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 5Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 6Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Rebecca Dalton
PB.41 Is double reading still a requirement in the NHSBSP in the digital era?
Liz Edwards1,2, Kate Jenkins1,2, Guy Stevens2
1Breast Test Wales, South East Wales, UK; 2Public Health Wales, Wales, UK
Correspondence: Liz Edwards
PB.42 Improving breast screening communication with South Asian (SA) women: Usage of multilingual videos on a handheld device
Anil Jain1,2, Jaanilka Molderson1, Shaheeda Shaikh1
1The Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK; 2Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Correspondence: Anil Jain
PB.43 A review of MRI Guided Breast Interventions at the Royal Marsden Hospital
Richard Sidebottom1,2, Elizabeth O’Flynn1, Laura Bombroffe1, Julie Hughes1, Erica Scurr1, Robin Wilson1
1Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; 2Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
Correspondence: Richard Sidebottom
PB.44 Initial single centre experience with the IntactTM percutaneous breast lesion excision system (Intact) using Ultrasound (USS) Guidance
Lyn Jones, Sasirekha Govindarajulu, Ajay K Sahu
Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
Correspondence: Lyn Jones
-
19 selected breast masses in 15 women were biopsied under USS guidance using “Intact”.
-
GA: 11 masses in 9 women (January 2012–July 2013).
-
LA: 8 masses in 6 women (September 2015-July 2016).
-
Histology included B2 (8), B3 (4) and B5 (7) masses.
-
Sizes for B3 and B5 masses: 4-17mm.
-
6/7 B5 and 4/4 B3 masses - histology confirmed complete excision with Intact.
-
No complications from the Intact procedures.
PB.45 Differences in acute and persistent pain following ultrasound and stereotactic guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) - results of a pilot survey
Matthew Brown1,2, Steve Allen1, Liz O’Flynn1,2, Nandita deSouza1,2
1The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; 2The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
Correspondence: Matthew Brown
PB.46 An audit of new biopsy technique
Rumana Rahim, Rema Wasan, Jane Goligher, Shalini Wijesuriya, Juliet Morel, Clare Peacock, Michael Michell, Asif Iqbal, David Evans, Bhavna Batohi, Tavleen Wasan, Vivien Phillips, Eden Manuel, Gillian Bowman, Keshthra Satchithananda
Kings College Hospital, London, UK
Correspondence: Rumana Rahim
-
Shorter: Mean Room-Time 35 minutes versus 43 minutes, Mean Compression-Time 19 minutes versus 23 minutes
-
Accuracy: 97.6% versus 94%
-
Lower mean total radiation dose: 14.83mGy versus 39.4mGy
-
Fewer mean exposures: 7 versus 10
-
Patient pain, comfort and acceptability scores were comparable as were operator ease of use scores
-
4% required prolonged compression for haemostasis with DBT compared with 2.5% with PS
-
6% vasovagal-rate with upright DBT compared to 0% with decubitus DBT or PS.
PB.47 10-year review of screen-detected lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) - How has our practice changed
Bhavna Batohi, Cheng Fang, Michael Michell, Juliet Morel, Chirag Shah, Shalini Wijesuriya, Clare Peacock, Rumana Rahim, Rema Wasan, Jane Goligher, Keshthra Satchithananda
King’s College Hospital, London, UK
Correspondence: Bhavna Batohi
-
Atypical duct hyperplasia 36%
-
Flat epithelial atypia 28%
-
Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion with atypia 27% and with no atypia 11%
-
Papilloma with atypia 55% and with no atypia 16%
-
Lobular neoplasia in situ 43%
-
Suspected phyllodes tumours 8%
-
Atypical apocrine adenosis 20%.