Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice

Strategies for Identifying and Recruiting Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer for Research Outside of Clinical Settings: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Research is needed to understand and address barriers to risk management for women at high (≥20% lifetime) risk for breast cancer, but recruiting this population for research studies is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This paper compares a variety of recruitment strategies used for a cross-sectional, observational study of high-risk women.

METHODS

Eligible participants were assigned female at birth, aged 25-85 years, English-speaking, living in the United States, and at high risk for breast cancer as defined by the American College of Radiology. Individuals were excluded if they had a personal history of breast cancer, prior bilateral mastectomy, medical contraindications for magnetic resonance imaging, or were not up-to-date on screening mammography per American College of Radiology guidelines. Participants were recruited from August 2020 to January 2021 using the following mechanisms: targeted Facebook advertisements, Twitter posts, ResearchMatch (a web-based research recruitment database), community partner promotions, paper flyers, and community outreach events. Interested individuals were directed to a secure website with eligibility screening questions. Participants self-reported method of recruitment during the eligibility screening. For each recruitment strategy, we calculated the rate of eligible respondents and completed surveys, costs per eligible participant, and participant demographics.

RESULTS

We received 1566 unique responses to the eligibility screener. Participants most often reported recruitment via Facebook advertisements (724/1566, 46%) and ResearchMatch (646/1566, 41%). Community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of eligible respondents (24/46, 52%), while ResearchMatch had the lowest proportion of eligible respondents (73/646, 11%). Word of mouth was the most cost-effective recruitment strategy (US $4.66 per completed survey response) and paper flyers were the least cost-effective (US $1448.13 per completed survey response). The demographic characteristics of eligible respondents varied by recruitment strategy: Twitter posts and community outreach events resulted in the highest proportion of Hispanic or Latina women (1/4, 25% and 2/6, 33%, respectively), and community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of non-Hispanic Black women (4/24, 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment strategies varied in their yield of study participants, results overall support the feasibility of identifying and recruiting women at high risk for breast cancer outside of clinical settings. Researchers must balance the associated costs and participant yield of various recruitment strategies in planning future studies focused on high-risk women.

Barriers and facilitators to breast cancer screening among high-risk women: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Women with greater than 20-25% lifetime breast cancer risk are recommended to have breast cancer screening with annual mammogram and supplemental breast MRI. However, few women follow these screening recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of screening among women at high risk for breast cancer, guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM).

METHODS

Unaffected high-risk women (N=63) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with breast cancer screening. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a combined deductive and inductive approach.

RESULTS

Most participants (84%) had received a screening mammogram; fewer (33%) had received a screening breast MRI. Only 14% had received neither screening. In line with the HSUM, qualitative analysis identified predisposing factors, enabling factors, and need factors associated with receipt of breast cancer screening. Enabling factors - including financial burden, logistic barriers, social support, and care coordination - were most frequently discussed. Predisposing factors included knowledge, health beliefs, and self-advocacy. Need factors included healthcare provider recommendation, family history of breast cancer, and personal medical history. Although HSUM themes were consistent for both mammography and breast MRI, participants did highlight several important differences in barriers and facilitators between the two screening modalities.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and enabling factors associated with supplemental screening for high-risk women represent possible intervention targets. Future research is needed to develop and test multilevel interventions targeting these factors, with the ultimate goal of increasing access to supplemental screening for high-risk women.

Prospective Study of Supplemental Screening With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer: Results of the Prevalence Round

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board-approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2-, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM.

CONCLUSION

A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

Forget Me Not: Incidental Findings on Breast MRI

With the growing utilization and expanding role of breast MRI, breast imaging radiologists may encounter an increasing number of incidental findings beyond the breast and axilla. Breast MRI encompasses a large area of anatomic coverage extending from the lower neck to the upper abdomen. While most incidental findings on breast MRI are benign, identifying metastatic disease can have a substantial impact on staging, prognosis, and treatment. Breast imaging radiologists should be familiar with common sites, MRI features, and breast cancer subtypes associated with metastatic disease to assist in differentiating malignant from benign findings. Furthermore, detection of malignancies of nonbreast origin as well as nonmalignant, but clinically relevant, incidental findings can significantly impact clinical management and patient outcomes. Breast imaging radiologists should consistently follow a comprehensive search pattern and employ techniques to improve the detection of these important incidental findings.

[WITHDRAWN] Predicting breast cancer with AI for individual risk-adjusted MRI screening and early detection

This paper has been withdrawn by Lukas Hirsch. Major revisions and rewriting in progress.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening Practices Reported Via an Online Survey

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening guidelines differ between organizations, and significant variations in practice patterns exist. Previous evidence suggests that provider-level factors are the greatest contributors to risk assessment and screening practice variability. This study aimed to characterize provider factors associated with breast cancer risk assessment and screening practice patterns, and to assess perceived barriers to providing risk assessment.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to providers at a single academic institution and to providers publicly via social media (January to August 2022). Respondents in the United States who care for adult women at risk for the development of breast cancer were included.

RESULTS

Most of the respondents in the 143 completed surveys were white/Caucasian (79%) females (90%) age 50 years or younger (79%), and whereas 97% discuss breast cancer screening with their patients, only 90% order screening mammograms. Risk factor assessment was common (93%), typically performed at the first visit (51%). Additional training in genetics or risk assessment was uncommon (17%), although the majority were interested but did not have the time or resources (55%). Although most (64%) did not perceive barriers to providing risk assessment or appropriate screening, the most common barriers were time (77%) and education (55%). Barriers were more common among family practice or obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) providers and those who worked in an academic setting (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer risk assessment and screening practices are highly variable. Although time is the major barrier to providing risk assessment, providers also need education. Primary care organizations could partner with breast cancer-focused societies for additional resources.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammogram-based Deep Learning and Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models in Patients Who Underwent Supplemental Screening with MRI

Background Access to supplemental screening breast MRI is determined using traditional risk models, which are limited by modest predictive accuracy. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a mammogram-based deep learning (DL) risk assessment model to that of traditional breast cancer risk models in patients who underwent supplemental screening with MRI. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing breast cancer screening MRI from September 2017 to September 2020 at four facilities. Risk was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 5-year and lifetime models as well as a DL 5-year model that generated a risk score based on the most recent screening mammogram. A risk score of 1.67% or higher defined increased risk for traditional 5-year models, a risk score of 20% or higher defined high risk for traditional lifetime models, and absolute scores of 2.3 or higher and 6.6 or higher defined increased and high risk, respectively, for the DL model. Model accuracy metrics including cancer detection rate (CDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) (PPV of abnormal findings at screening [PPV1], PPV of biopsies recommended [PPV2], and PPV of biopsies performed [PPV3]) were compared using logistic regression models. Results This study included 2168 women who underwent 4247 high-risk screening MRI examinations (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-60 years]). CDR (per 1000 examinations) was higher in patients at high risk according to the DL model (20.6 [95% CI: 11.8, 35.6]) than according to the TC (6.0 [95% CI: 2.9, 12.3]; P < .01) and BCRAT (6.8 [95% CI: 2.9, 15.8]; P = .04) lifetime models. PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were higher in patients identified as high risk by the DL model (PPV1, 14.6%; PPV2, 32.4%; PPV3, 36.4%) than those identified as high risk with the TC (PPV1, 5.0%; PPV2, 12.7%; PPV3, 13.5%; P value range, .02-.03) and BCRAT (PPV1, 5.5%; PPV2, 11.1%; PPV3, 12.5%; P value range, .02-.05) lifetime models. Conclusion Patients identified as high risk by a mammogram-based DL risk assessment model showed higher CDR at breast screening MRI than patients identified as high risk with traditional risk models. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae in this issue.

Patterns of Screening Mammography and Breast MRI During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective, Chart-Review Study

Objective

This study examined patterns of breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the Georgetown University IRB. Review of electronic medical records identified screening mammograms and breast MRIs between March 13, 2018 and December 31, 2020, for female patients aged 18 to 85 years. Descriptive statistics characterized patterns of breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression analyses examined whether receipt of breast MRI differed over time and demographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of breast MRI in 2020.

Results

Data included 47 956 mammography visits in 32 778 patients and 407 screening breast MRI visits in 340 patients. After an initial decrease following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, both screening mammograms and screening breast MRI demonstrated early recovery. Although the mammography receipt remained sustained, the receipt of screening breast MRI decreased in late 2020. Odds of having a breast MRI did not differ between 2018 and 2019 (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.92%-1.25%; P = 0.384) but were significantly lower in 2020 versus 2019 (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61%-0.94%; P = 0.011). No demographic or clinical factors were associated with receipt of breast MRI during the COVID-19 pandemic (all P-values ≥0.225).

Conclusion

Breast cancer screening decreased following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although both procedures demonstrated early recovery, the rebound in screening breast MRI was not sustained. Interventions promoting return to screening breast MRI may be needed for high-risk women.

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status

BACKGROUND

In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

METHODS

Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Contrast-Enhanced In-Phase Dixon Sequence: Impact on Biopsy Clip Detection on Breast MRI

BACKGROUND. Identification of breast biopsy clips using conventional MRI sequences may be challenging. A contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence may have greater conspicuity for areas of susceptibility compared with standard clinical sequences. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare detection of breast biopsy clips on MRI between the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence and three routine clinical sequences. METHODS. This retrospective study included 164 patients (mean age, 50.3 years) with a total of 281 breast biopsy clips who underwent contrast-enhanced breast MRI between January 2, 2019, and April 16, 2020. Three radiologists, blinded to the clip location and sequence used, independently annotated biopsy clip locations on three clinical sequences (T1-weighted non-fat-suppressed [NFS], STIR, and first phase from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-suppressed [FS]) and on a contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence and then recorded confidence scores (1-4 scale). A study coordinator used all available imaging and reports to localize clips on MRI, which served as the reference standard. A physicist measured clip CNR. Sequences were compared using the McNemar test and two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS. Among the three readers, pooled sensitivity and PPV were 78.2% and 96.2% for T1-weighted NFS, 26.6% and 92.7% for STIR, 61.7% and 95.9% for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted FS, and 85.1% and 95.1% for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence. Pooled sensitivity was higher for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence than for the other sequences (all p < .05); pooled PPV was not significantly different between contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon and the other sequences (all p > .05). Mean confidence scores (pooled across readers for true-positive assessments) and mean CNR were 3.0 ± 0.9 (SD) and 1.21 ± 0.61 for T1-weighted NFS, 1.7 ± 0.9 and 0.57 ± 0.69 for STIR, 2.5 ± 1.0 and 0.54 ± 0.61 for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted FS, and 3.5 ± 0.8 and 4.05 ± 2.6 for the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence. Pooled mean confidence scores and CNR were higher for contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon than for the other sequences (all p < .001). CONCLUSION. Compared with clinical sequences, the contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence had higher sensitivity for detecting breast biopsy clips on MRI and higher reader confidence and CNR, without change in PPV. CLINICAL IMPACT. The contrast-enhanced in-phase Dixon sequence may help address a current challenge in clinical breast MRI interpretation.

Effect of an Educational Intervention on Women's Health Care Provider Knowledge Gaps About Breast Cancer Risk Model Use and High-risk Screening Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness of a web-based educational intervention on women's health care provider knowledge of breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations.

METHODS

A web-based pre- and post-test study including 177 U.S.-based women's health care providers was conducted in 2019. Knowledge gaps were defined as fewer than 75% of respondents answering correctly. Pre- and post-test knowledge differences (McNemar test) and associations of baseline characteristics with pre-test knowledge gaps (logistic regression) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Respondents included 131/177 (74.0%) physicians; 127/177 (71.8%) practiced obstetrics/gynecology. Pre-test, 118/177 (66.7%) knew the Gail model predicts lifetime invasive breast cancer risk; this knowledge gap persisted post-test [(121/177, 68.4%); P = 0.77]. Just 39.0% (69/177) knew the Gail model identifies women eligible for risk-reducing medications; this knowledge gap resolved. Only 48.6% (86/177) knew the Gail model should not be used to identify women meeting high-risk MRI screening guidelines; this deficiency decreased to 66.1% (117/177) post-test (P = 0.001). Pre-test, 47.5% (84/177) knew the Tyrer-Cuzick model is used to identify women meeting high-risk screening MRI criteria, 42.9% (76/177) to predict BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation risk, and 26.0% (46/177) to predict lifetime invasive breast cancer risk. These knowledge gaps persisted but improved. For a high-risk 30-year-old, 67.8% (120/177) and 54.2% (96/177) pre-test knew screening MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis are recommended, respectively; 19.2% (34/177) knew both are recommended; and 53% (94/177) knew US is not recommended. These knowledge gaps resolved or reduced.

CONCLUSION

Web-based education can reduce important provider knowledge gaps about breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations.

Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).

The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women

Randomized, clinical trials have established the efficacy of screening mammography in improving survival from breast cancer for women through detection of early, asymptomatic disease. However, disparities in survival rates between black women and women from other racial and ethnic groups following breast cancer diagnosis persist. Various professional groups have different, somewhat conflicting, guidelines with regards to recommended age for commencing screening as well as recommended frequency of screening exams, but the trials upon which these recommendations are based were not specifically designed to examine benefit among black women. Furthermore, these recommendations do not appear to incorporate the unique epidemiological circumstances of breast cancer among black women, including higher rates of diagnosis before age 40 years and greater likelihood of advanced stage at diagnosis, into their formulation. In this review, we examined the epidemiologic and socioeconomic factors that are associated with breast cancer among black women and assess the implications of these factors for screening in this population. Specifically, we recommend that by no later than age 25 years, all black women should undergo baseline assessment for future risk of breast cancer utilizing a model that incorporates race (e.g., Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [BCRAT], formerly the Gail model) and that this assessment should be conducted by a breast specialist or a healthcare provider (e.g., primary care physician or gynecologist) who is trained to assess breast cancer risk and is aware of the increased risks of early (i.e., premenopausal) and biologically aggressive (e.g., late-stage, triple-negative) breast cancer among black women.

Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts: Current Status and Future Directions for Appropriate Risk Stratification and Imaging Utilization

Breast density continues to be a prevailing topic in the field of breast imaging, with continued complexities contributing to overall confusion and controversy among patients and the medical community. In this article, we explore the current status of breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts including breast density legislation. Risk-based approaches to supplemental screening may be more financially cost-effective. While all advanced imaging modalities detect additional primarily invasive, node-negative cancers, the degree to which this occurs can vary by density category. Future directions include expanding the use of density-inclusive risk models with appropriate risk stratification and imaging utilization. Further research is needed, however, to better understand how to optimize population-based screening programs with knowledge of patients' individualized risk, including breast density assessment, to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of breast cancer screening.

Characteristics associated with healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic for women in the United States at high risk for breast cancer

Delays in healthcare, including breast cancer screening, were documented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, no studies have examined the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare among women at high (≥20 % lifetime) risk for breast cancer. This study fills that gap. Between August 2020 and January 2021, high-risk women (N = 225) living in the United States (US) completed an online survey assessing COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Descriptive statistics characterized the frequency of breast cancer screening (mammogram and breast magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multivariable linear regression analysis with backward selection examined demographic characteristics associated with COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Since March 2020, 40 % of participants had received a mammogram and 12 % had received a screening breast MRI. On average, participants reported low levels of COVID-related healthcare disruptions (M = 1.97 on a 0-4 scale, higher = more disruptions). Participants who were younger (β = -0.21, p = 0.002) and not working (β = 0.18, p = 0.009) reported more COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Compared to non-Hispanic White participants, those from any other racial or ethnic group reported fewer COVID-related healthcare disruptions (β = -0.15, p = 0.020). Although few high-risk women received breast cancer screening after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, they reported overall low levels of COVID-related healthcare disruptions. Results identify subgroups of high-risk women whose healthcare may have been more affected by the pandemic. Efforts to encourage US women at high risk for breast cancer to return to routine preventive care (including breast cancer screening) may need to be targeted towards women who are younger, not working, and non-Hispanic White.

Bone Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Clinical Outcomes and Features Associated with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Objective

To determine prevalence and frequency of malignancy among bone lesions detected on breast MRI and to identify clinical and imaging features associated with bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), as bone lesions are suboptimally evaluated on breast imaging protocols and can present a diagnostic challenge.

Methods

This IRB-approved retrospective review of breast MRIs performed from June 2009 to June 2018 identified patients with bone lesions. Demographic, clinical, and MRI features were reviewed. Clinical outcome of bone lesions was determined based on pathology and/or additional diagnostic imaging. All benign lesions had ≥ 2 years of imaging follow-up. Statistics were computed with Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

Results

Among all patients with breast MRI, 1.2% (340/29 461) had bone lesions. Of these, 224 were confirmed benign or metastatic BC by pathology or imaging follow-up, with 70.1% (157/224) be- nign and 29.9% (67/224) metastatic. Bone metastases were associated with BC history (P < 0.001), with metastases occurring in 58.2% (53/91) of patients with current BC, 17.9% (14/78) patients with prior BC, and 0.0% (0/55) without BC. Bone metastases were associated with invasive and ad- vanced stage BC and, on MRI, with location in sternum, ribs, or clavicles, larger size, multiplicity, andT1 hypointensity (all P < 0.01 in tests of overall association).

Conclusion

Of clinically confirmed breast MRI-detected bone lesions, 30% were bone metastases; all were detected in patients with current or prior BC. Metastases were associated with advanced stage, invasive carcinoma, larger lesion size, multiplicity, low T1 signal, and non-spine location.

Risk of Lobular Neoplasia Upgrade with Synchronous Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and classic lobular carcinoma in situ encompass a spectrum of proliferative lesions known as lobular neoplasia (LN). When imaging-concordant and found in isolation on core needle biopsy (CNB), LN infrequently upgrades to carcinoma on surgical excision, and routine excision is not indicated. Upgrade rates in the setting of synchronous carcinoma are not well studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with radiology-pathology concordant synchronous LN and separately biopsied ipsilateral (n = 35) or contralateral (n = 15) carcinoma who underwent excision between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Frequency of upgrade, to either invasive or in situ carcinoma, was quantified, and factors associated with upgrade were assessed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The median age was 55 (range 33-74) years. The upgrade rate of LN was 6% and not significantly different between ipsilateral (2.9%) and contralateral (13.3%) carcinoma (p = 0.15). All upgraded LN lesions were ALH on CNB and detected as non-mass enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). No additional disease was demonstrated after excision at the site of the original LN CNB in 22.9% (8 out of 35) of ipsilateral and 13.3% (2 out of 15) of contralateral patients. Upgrade was not associated with family history, menopausal status, imaging modality used to detect LN, or extent of LN on CNB (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a low upgrade rate (6%) in our study cohort of LN with synchronous ipsilateral or contralateral carcinoma, which suggests that not all LN mandates excision with synchronous carcinoma. Larger, multi-institution studies are needed to validate these findings.

Management of MRI-Detected Benign Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes

Introduction  In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate benign internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) in terms of frequency, number, size, long axis/short axis (L/S) ratio, intercostal location, presence of fatty hilum, and stability using breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and discuss the findings by reviewing existing literature. Methods  This single-center study consisted of 130 women between the ages of 24 and 76 years, who had at least two breast MRI examinations in our institution, with the latest exam performed between January 1, 2019 and November 1, 2019, were eligible for the study. MRIs of the study group were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Results  IMLN was detected in 31.1% of the 427 MRIs, with a total number of 256 nodes. The most common indication for breast MRI was high-risk screening (66.2%). The median number of nodes per patient was 1 (range: 1-6). The median follow-up time was 19.5 months (range: 6-141 months). None of these benign nodes showed significant interval growth. Mean L/R ratio of the nodes was 1.9. One hundred and four nodes ( n  = 104, 40.6%) had a L/S ratio less than 2 and 43.2% ( n  = 45) of the nodes with a L/S ratio less than 2, had a long axis measuring less than or equal to 3mm. IMLN of patients with breast implants had the largest mean long axis. The fatty hilum was identified in 34.3% ( n  = 68) of the 256 nodes. The size of the lymph nodes where fatty hilum was visualized was significantly larger than the ones where fatty hilum was not visualized ( p  < 0.001). Fatty hilum could be visualized in only 2.7% of the nodes with a long axis smaller than 3 mm. Conclusion  IMLN is a frequent finding on breast MRI. We have shown that benign IMLNs might be large sized in specific cases like patients with breast implants. When small sized (≤3mm), they are more likely to be rounded (L/S ratio <2). The fatty hilum that is a feature of benignity might not be visualized in nodes less than or equal to3mm.

Accuracy of Perceived Breast Cancer Risk in Black and White Women with an Elevated Risk

Introduction

Perceived breast cancer risk predicts screening behaviors. However, perceived risk is often inaccurate, notably in Black women, who often underestimate their risk despite having higher disease-specific mortality rates. We examined predictors of perceived breast cancer risk, and its impact on surveillance.

Methods

We used baseline data from a randomized trial targeting unaffected women recruited by relatives with early-onset breast cancer. Data collection occurred between 2012 and 2013. Accuracy of perceived risk was assessed by comparing perceived risk to objective lifetime breast cancer risks, calculated with the Gail and Claus models. A multivariate mixed model regression examined predictors of accuracy of perceived risk. The impact of perceived risk on breast cancer surveillance was assessed with one-way ANOVAS comparing Black to White women.

Results

Among participants, 21.4% self-identified as Black and 78.6% as White. Overall, 72.9% (n=247/339), 16.2% (n=55/339), and 10.9% (n=37/339) of participants overestimated, accurately perceived, and underestimated, respectively, their lifetime breast cancer risk. Race did not predict the accuracy of risk perception. Younger participants were more likely to overestimate their risk (β=-.455; CI [-.772, -.138]; P=.005). MRI utilization was predicted by a higher objective risk (F 1,263 [= 30.271]; P<.001) and more accurate risk perception (P=.010; Fisher's exact test).

Conclusions

Most women with a family history of early-onset breast cancer inaccurately perceived their risk for developing the disease. Younger women were more likely to overestimate their risk. Findings can guide the development of tailored interventions to improve adherence to breast cancer surveillance recommendations.

Perioperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer care: Distinct adoption trajectories among physician patient-sharing networks

BACKGROUND

Despite no proven benefit in clinical outcomes, perioperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was rapidly adopted into breast cancer care in the 2000's, offering a prime opportunity for assessing factors influencing overutilization of unproven technology.

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation among physician patient-sharing networks in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI for breast cancer surgery and compare the characteristics of patients, providers, and mastectomy use in physician networks that had different adoption trajectories.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database in 2004-2009, we identified 147 physician patient-sharing networks (caring for 26,886 patients with stage I-III breast cancer). After adjusting for patient clinical risk factors, we calculated risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI use for each physician network in 2004-2005, 2006-2007, and 2008-2009, respectively. Based on the risk-adjusted rate, we identified three distinct trajectories of adopting perioperative MRI among physician networks: 1) low adoption (risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI increased from 2.8% in 2004-2005 to 14.8% in 2008-2009), 2) medium adoption (8.8% to 45.1%), and 3) high adoption (33.0% to 71.7%). Physician networks in the higher adoption trajectory tended to have a larger proportion of cancer specialists, more patients with high income, and fewer patients who were Black. After adjusting for patients' clinical risk factors, the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy decreased from 41.1% in 2004-2005 to 38.5% in 2008-2009 among those in physician networks with low MRI adoption, but increased from 27.0% to 31.4% among those in physician networks with high MRI adoption (p = 0.03 for the interaction term between trajectory group and time).

CONCLUSIONS

Physician patient-sharing networks varied in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI. These distinct trajectories were associated with the composition of patients and providers in the networks, and had important implications for patterns of mastectomy use.

Screening Breast MRI and Gadolinium Deposition: Cause for Concern?

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have been used worldwide for over 30 years and have enabled lifesaving diagnoses. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is frequently used as supplemental screening for women with an elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Data have emerged that indicate a fractional amount of administered gadolinium is retained in the bone, skin, solid organs, and brain tissues of patients with normal renal function, although there are currently no reliable data regarding the clinical or biological significance of this retention. Linear GBCAs are associated with a higher risk of gadolinium retention than macrocyclic agents. Over the course of their lives, screened women may receive high cumulative doses of GBCA. Therefore, as breast MRI screening utilization increases, thoughtful use of GBCA is indicated in this patient population.

Recent Trends in Screening Breast MRI

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess trends in screening breast MRI utilization among privately insured women in the U.S. from 2007 to 2017.

METHODS

The utilization of screening breast MRI among women aged 25-64 years from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017, was obtained using the MarketScan Commercial Database. We used Current Procedural Terminology codes to exclude breast MRI exams performed in women with a new breast cancer diagnosis and in women imaged to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy in the preceding 90 days. During the 11-year study, 351 763 study-eligible women underwent 488 852 MRI scans.

RESULTS

An overall 55.0% increase in screening breast MRI utilization was observed over the study period, with a steadily increasing trend. The greatest annual increase in percent utilization was from 2007 to 2008 at 16.6%. The highest utilization rate was in 2017, in which 0.4% of women aged 25-64 years underwent screening breast MRI. Of the women who underwent screening MRI with sufficient follow-up, 76.5% underwent only one examination during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of screening breast MRI has increased steadily in the past decade to a peak of 0.4% of adult women. However, an estimated 9% of U.S. women are eligible for high-risk breast MRI screening; thus, utilization falls short of optimal compliance. Further studies to evaluate the barriers to screening compliance may help optimize utilization.

Automatic breast tissue segmentation in MRIs with morphology snake and deep denoiser training via extended Stein's unbiased risk estimator

Accurate segmentation of the breast tissue is a significant challenge in the analysis of breast MR images, especially analysis of breast images with low contrast. Most of the existing methods for breast segmentation are semi-automatic and limited in their ability to achieve accurate results. This is because of difficulties in removing landmarks from noisy magnetic resonance images (MRI). Especially, when tumour is imaged for scanning, how to isolate the tumour region from chest will directly affect the accuracy for tumour to be detected. Due to low intensity levels and the close connection between breast and chest portion in MRIs, this study proposes an innovative, fully automatic and fast segmentation approach which combines histogram with inverse Gaussian gradient for morphology snakes, along with extended Stein's unbiased risk estimator (eSURE) applied for unsupervised learning of deep neural network Gaussian denoisers, aimed at accurate identification of landmarks such as chest and breast.

Patient-Reported Testing Burden of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112)

IMPORTANCE

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pretreatment planning of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Understanding changes in short-term health-related quality of life associated with breast MRI would allow for a more complete comparative effectiveness assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether there are changes in patient-reported quality of life associated with breast MRI among women diagnosed with DCIS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was a substudy of a nonrandomized clinical trial conducted at 75 participating US institutions from March 2015 to April 2016. Women recently diagnosed with unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. A total of 355 women met the eligibility criteria and underwent the study MRI. Data analysis was performed from June 3, 2020, to July 1, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants underwent bilateral breast MRI within 30 days of study registration and before surgery. Information on patient-reported testing burden for breast MRI was collected after MRI and before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this substudy was the patient-reported testing burden of breast MRI, measured by the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI) summated scale score. The TMI is a 7-item instrument that evaluates the temporary changes in quality of life associated with imaging before, during, and after the test (0 represents the worst possible, 100 the hypothetical ideal test experience).

RESULTS

Of the 355 women who met the eligibility criteria, 244 (69%) completed both questionnaires and were included in this analysis. The median age was 59 years (range, 34-85 years). The mean MRI TMI summated scale score was 85.9 (95% CI, 84.6-87.3). Of the 244 women, 142 (58%) experienced at least some fear and anxiety before the examination, and 120 women (49%) experienced fear and anxiety during the examination. A total of 156 women (64%) experienced pain or discomfort during the examination. In multivariable analyses, greater test-related burden was associated with higher levels of cancer worry (regression coefficient, -2.75; SE, 0.94; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, a clinically meaningful breast MRI testing burden among women with DCIS was revealed that was significantly associated with cancer worry. Understanding the potential quality-of-life reduction associated with MRI, especially when used in combination with mammography, may allow development of targeted interventions to improve the patient experience.

Imaging surveillance for the detection of ipsilateral local tumor recurrence in patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with acellular dermal matrix: abbreviated MRI versus conventional mammography and ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the usefulness of surveillance-abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) for the detection of ipsilateral local tumor recurrence (LTR) in patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) by comparing its diagnostic performance with that of mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US).

METHODS

The postoperative MG, US, and AB-MRI findings of the ipsilateral breast and pathological results of 324 patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS using ADM were reviewed. The cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) for each imaging modality were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 8 ipsilateral LTRs were diagnosed, and most cancers (87.5%) were stage 0 or 1 (median size of invasive cancer, 1.44 cm; range, 0.7-2 cm). The CDRs of MG, US, MG + US, and AB-MRI were 0.009, 0.012, 0.015, and 0.025 per woman, respectively. Three cancers were detectable on only AB-MRI, and the additional CDR of AB-MRI was 0.010. The sensitivity and specificity of MG, US, MG + US, and AB-MRI were 37.5%, 50%, 62.5%, and 100% and 99.7%, 98.4%, 98.1%, and 97.8%, respectively. The PPVs for biopsy were 75%, 44.4%, 45.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. The AUC was significantly higher for AB-MRI (0.989) than for MG alone (0.686, P = 0.0009), US alone (0.742, P = 0.009), and MG + US (0.803, P = 0.04). A total of 66.7% of cancers visible on only AB-MRI were located at the deep posterior portion of the excision cavity, which might have been missed with MG or MG + US due to masking by the ADM filler.

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI can improve the detection of ipsilateral LTR despite postoperative changes caused by ADM fillers compared to conventional MG and US. Patients who undergo BCS with ADM can be candidates for AB-MRI surveillance considering improved cancer detection and high sensitivity.

Screening Breast MRI and the Science of Premenopausal Background Parenchymal Enhancement

The significance of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on screening and diagnostic breast MRI continues to be elucidated. Background parenchymal enhancement was initially deemed probably benign and followed or thought of as an artifact degrading the accuracy of breast cancer detection on breast MRI examinations. Subsequent research has focused on understanding the role of BPE regarding screening breast MRI. Today, there is growing evidence that a myriad of factors affect BPE, which in turn may influence patient outcomes. Additionally, BPE could represent an important risk factor for the future development of breast cancer. This article aims to describe the most up-to-date research on BPE as it relates to screening breast MRI in premenopausal women.

Layers of information: interacting constraints on breast cancer risk-management by high-risk African American women

Objectives: To understand how various decision-making dynamics interact to shape the risk-management choices of African American women at high-risk of breast cancer, and to explore whether African American and White women have differential access to the information and interactions that promote proactive, confident risk-management behavior.Design: This paper draws on 50 original in-depth, semi-structured interviews with African American and White women at elevated risk of breast cancer. We used inductive grounded-theory methodology to explore the processes by which women make risk-management decisions and to compare those processes between racial groups. Moving backward from women's decisions about whether or not to engage in specific risk-management behaviors, we explored the patterns that underlie behavioral decisions.Results: We find that decisions to engage in risk-management behavior rest on three accumulated layers of information. The layer most proximal to making risk-management decisions involves specific information about risk-management options; the middle layer involves general information about managing breast cancer risk; and the foundational layer involves personal perceptions of breast cancer risk and prevention. African American and White women experience distinct dynamics at each of these levels, and these differences may help explain racial differences in risk-management behavior. Compared to their White counterparts, African American women faced additional burdens at every step along the risk-management journey.Conclusion: These findings suggest that information gathering is more complex than has previously been addressed, that information access and provider access are closely related, and that African American women may be systematically disadvantaged with respect to information-generating experiences. Preventing cancer morbidity and mortality requires that all high-risk women have access to the layers of information necessary to engage in cancer screenings and preventive interventions. These results exemplify the ways that structural, social, and interpersonal inequalities combine to influence risk-management choices.

Prospective multicenter assessment of patient preferences for properties of gadolinium-based contrast media and their potential socioeconomic impact in a screening breast MRI setting

Objective

It is unknown how patients prioritize gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) benefits (detection sensitivity) and risks (reactions, gadolinium retention, cost). The purpose of this study is to measure preferences for properties of GBCM in women at intermediate or high risk of breast cancer undergoing annual screening MRI.

Methods

An institutional reviewed board-approved prospective discrete choice conjoint survey was administered to patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing screening MRI at 4 institutions (July 2018–March 2020). Participants were given 15 tasks and asked to choose which of two hypothetical GBCM they would prefer. GBCMs varied by the following attributes: sensitivity for cancer detection (80–95%), intracranial gadolinium retention (1–100 molecules per 100 million administered), severe allergic-like reaction rate (1–19 per 100,000 administrations), mild allergic-like reaction rate (10–1000 per 100,000 administrations), out-of-pocket cost ($25–$100). Attribute levels were based on published values of existing GBCMs. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to derive attribute “importance.” Preference shares were determined by simulation.

Results

Response (87% [247/284]) and completion (96% [236/247]) rates were excellent. Sensitivity (importance = 44.3%, 95% confidence interval = 42.0–46.7%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic-like reaction risk (19.5%, 17.9–21.1%), severe allergic-like reaction risk (17.0%, 15.8–18.1%), intracranial gadolinium retention (11.6%, 10.5–12.7%), out-of-pocket expense (7.5%, 6.8–8.3%)). Lower income participants placed more importance on cost and less on sensitivity (p < 0.01). A simulator is provided that models GBCM preference shares by GBCM attributes and competition.

Conclusions

Patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing MRI screening prioritize cancer detection over GBCM-related risks, and prioritize reaction risks over gadolinium retention.

Key Points

• Among women undergoing annual breast MRI screening, cancer detection sensitivity (attribute “importance,” 44.3%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic reaction risk 19.5%, severe allergic reaction risk 17.0%, intracranial gadolinium retention 11.6%, out-of-pocket expense 7.5%).

• Prospective four-center patient preference data have been incorporated into a GBCM choice simulator that allows users to input GBCM properties and calculate patient preference shares for competitor GBCMs.

• Lower-income women placed more importance on out-of-pocket cost and less importance on cancer detection (p < 0.01) when prioritizing GBCM properties.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07982-y.

Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

OBJECTIVE. Supplemental screening breast MRI is recommended for women with an estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20-25%. The performance of risk prediction models varies for each individual and across groups of women. The present study investigates the concordance of three breast cancer risk prediction models among women presenting for screening mammography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In this prospective study, we calculated the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer using the modified Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick version 7, and BRCAPRO models for each woman who presented for screening mammography. Per American Cancer Society guidelines, for each woman the risk was categorized as less than 20% or 20% or greater as well as less than 25% or 25% or greater with use of each model. Venn diagrams were constructed to evaluate concordance across models. The McNemar test was used to test differences in risk group allocations between models, with p ≤ .05 considered to denote statistical significance. RESULTS. Of 3503 screening mammography patients who underwent risk stratification, 3219 (91.9%) were eligible for risk estimation using all three models. Using at least one model, 440 (13.7%) women had a lifetime risk of 20% or greater, including 390 women (12.1%) according to the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model, 18 (0.6%) according to the BRCAPRO model, and 141 (4.4%) according to the modified Gail model. Six women (0.2%) had a risk of 20% or greater according to all three models. Women were significantly more likely to be classified as having a high lifetime breast cancer risk by the Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 model compared with the modified Gail model, with thresholds of 20% or greater (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 4.7-8.7) or 25% or greater (odds ratio, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.7-11.9) used for both models. CONCLUSION. To identify women with a high lifetime breast cancer risk, practices should use estimates of lifetime breast cancer risk derived from multiple risk prediction models.

Impact of Age, Race, and Socioeconomic Status on Women's Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Communication of Estimated Breast Cancer Risk

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Performing breast cancer risk assessment at the time of screening mammography has potential to increase high-risk identification, appropriate supplemental screening, and risk management. The study's goal is to investigate women's interest in risk assessment and preferred method of risk communication in a diverse patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surveys in English and five non-English languages were distributed to women presenting for screening mammography at eight screening mammography facilities between February and May 2019 to assess their interest in risk assessment, preferred method, and level of detail of estimated risk communication in hypothetical scenarios where estimated risks are average and elevated.

RESULTS

Among 683 survey respondents, 592 (87%) expressed interest in learning about their estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and education, women with higher income were more interested in risk assessment than comparison group (p<0.05). The most preferred method of average risk communication was by a mailed letter accompanying mammographic results (57%), but more women exclusively preferred face-to-face communications of elevated risk than of average risk estimate (191, 28% vs. 128, 19%, p<0.0001). Phone communication was more preferred by younger women, electronic communication was less preferred by older women and those with lower income, and non-Hispanic blacks and older women preferred less detailed communication (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors influence women's interest in risk assessment and preference in risk communication about breast cancer. Screening Mammogram facilities implementing risk assessment should consider risk communication strategies that are most effective for their patient population.

Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging at a referral center for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in Brazil

Objective

To describe the indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a referral center for breast cancer in Brazil.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study in which we reviewed the clinical records, including physician requests and patient questionnaires, of women who underwent breast MRI between 2014 and 2018 at a referral center for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Results

The most common indication for breast MRI was as a complement to mammography/ultrasonography (in 43.6% of cases), followed by breast cancer staging (in 25.1%), the screening of patients at high risk (in 17.4%), the evaluation of breast implants (in 10.1%), and the evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (in 3.8%).

Conclusion

Although there is strong evidence supporting the use of breast MRI, mainly for the screening of high-risk patients, the imaging method is underutilized in Brazil.

Narrowing the Gap: Imaging Disparities in Radiology

It may seem unlikely that the field of radiology perpetuates disparities in health care, as most radiologists never interact directly with patients, and racial bias is not an obvious factor when interpreting images. However, a closer look reveals that imaging plays an important role in the propagation of disparities. For example, many advanced and resource-intensive imaging modalities, such as MRI and PET/CT, are generally less available in the hospitals frequented by people of color, and when they are available, access is impeded due to longer travel and wait times. Furthermore, their images may be of lower quality, and their interpretations may be more error prone. The aggregate effect of these imaging acquisition and interpretation disparities in conjunction with social factors is insufficiently recognized as part of the wide variation in disease outcomes seen between races in America. Understanding the nature of disparities in radiology is important to effectively deploy the resources and expertise necessary to mitigate disparities through diversity and inclusion efforts, research, and advocacy. In this article, the authors discuss disparities in access to imaging, examine their causes, and propose solutions aimed at addressing these disparities.

Breast MRI in DCIS size estimation, breast-conserving surgery and oncoplastic breast surgery

The impact of MRI on improving surgical outcomes in DCIS is debated. Here, we explore the utility of MRI in the investigation and management of DCIS in three key areas. Firstly, we highlight that MRI is likely to be a more accurate predictor of actual tumour size than conventional imaging. Secondly, we examine mastectomy rates and reoperation rates across the literature and suggest that surgical outcomes do not differ between pre-operative MRI and conventional imaging groups, despite improved size estimation on MRI. Finally, we examine the rapidly developing field of oncoplastic breast surgery and highlight a paucity of data in determining the usefulness of pre-operative MRI in this field, despite this being an oncologically safe alternative with improved patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Abbreviated MR Imaging for Breast Cancer

Breast MR imaging is the most sensitive imaging method for the detection of breast cancer and detects more aggressive malignancies than mammography and ultrasound examination. Despite these advantages, breast MR imaging has low use rates for breast cancer screening. Abbreviated breast MR imaging, in which a limited number of breast imaging sequences are obtained, has been proposed as a way to solve cost and patient tolerance issues while preserving the high cancer detection rate of breast MR imaging. This review discusses abbreviated breast MR imaging, including protocols, multicenter clinical trial results, clinical workflow implementation challenges, and future directions.

Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Design and Imaging Protocol of a Prospective Multicenter Study in Korea

Purpose

Interest in unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for breast cancer is growing due to concerns about gadolinium deposition in the brain and the high cost of contrast-enhanced MRI. The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Trial (DWIST), which is a prospective, multicenter, intraindividual comparative cohort study designed to compare the performance of mammography, ultrasonography, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI screening in women at high risk of developing breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 890 women with BRCA mutation or family history of breast cancer and lifetime risk ≥ 20% are enrolled. The participants undergo 2 annual breast screenings with digital mammography, ultrasonography, DCE MRI, and DW MRI at 3.0 T. Images are independently interpreted by trained radiologists. The reference standard is a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up. Each image modality and their combination will be compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, rate of invasive cancer detection, abnormal interpretation rate, and characteristics of detected cancers. The first participant was enrolled in April 2019. At the time of manuscript submission, 5 academic medical centers in South Korea are actively enrolling eligible women and a total of 235 women have undergone the first round of screening. Completion of enrollment is expected in 2022 and the results of the study are expected to be published in 2026.

Discussion

DWIST is the first prospective multicenter study to compare the performance of DW MRI and conventional imaging modalities for breast cancer screening in high-risk women. DWIST is currently in the patient enrollment phase.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03835897

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality for breast cancer detection and guidelines recommend its use, in addition to screening mammography, for high-risk women. The most recent American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) manual coordinated cross-modality BI-RADS terminology and established an outcome monitoring section that helps guide a medical imaging outcomes audit. This article provides a framework for performing a breast MR imaging audit in clinical practice, incorporating ACR BI-RADS guidance and more recently published data, clarifies common pitfalls, and discusses audit challenges related to evolving clinical practice.

Optimal Screening in Breast Cancer Survivors With Dense Breasts on Mammography

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Potential of using mammography screening appointments to identify high-risk women: cross sectional survey results from the national health interview survey

PURPOSE

Mammography screening encounters may represent ideal opportunities to identify high-risk women for risk-based screening. During mammography appointments, radiology practices evaluate breast density and ascertain known breast cancer risk factors. Our purpose was to evaluate the potential for mammographic screening encounters to identify high-risk women by estimating the (1) proportion of high-risk women who report that they have undergone mammographic screening and the (2) proportion of high-risk women who receive recommendations for breast MRI screening.

METHODS

Women ages 30-85 without breast cancer histories were included from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative cross-sectional household survey (response rate 80%). Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool was used to determine high-risk (lifetime risk>20%). Among high-risk women, primary outcome was proportion reporting mammography screening, secondary outcome was receipt of a breast MRI recommendation after recent mammogram, accounting for complex survey design.

RESULTS

14,958 women were included. 1.0% were high-risk of whom: 91.9% ever had a mammogram, 68.0% had a mammogram within the last year, 81.5% had a mammogram within the last 2 years. 6.4% were recommended to undergo breast MRI. Among high-risk women, women with dense breast tissue were more likely (OR 496.0, 95%CI 52.6,4674.0) and older women were less likely (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.84,0.99) to receive recommendations for breast MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk women, 92% reported undergoing at least one mammogram in their lives. 94% did not receive recommendations for breast MRI screening and 32% did not have a mammogram within the last year. To identify high-risk women, breast imaging centers should consider determining lifetime breast cancer risk during mammography screening visits.

Should abbreviated breast MRI be compliant with American College of Radiology requirements for MRI accreditation?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate non-inferiority and diagnostic performance of an American College of Radiology compliant abbreviated MRI protocol (AB-MRI) compared with standard-of-care breast MRI (SOC-BMRI) in patients with increased breast cancer risk.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women with increased lifetime breast cancer risk by American Cancer Society guidelines underwent breast MRI at a single institution between October 2015 and February 2018. AB-MRI was acquired at 3.0 T with T2-weighted extended fast spin echo triple-echo Dixon and pre- and post-contrast 3D dual-echo fast spoiled gradient echo two-point Dixon sequences with an 8-channel breast coil 1-7 days after SOC-BMRI. Three readers independently reviewed AB-MRI and assigned BI-RADS categories for maximum intensity projection images (AB1), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images (AB2), and DCE and non-contrast T2 and fat-only images (AB3). These scores were compared to those from SOC-BMRI.

RESULTS

Cancer yield was 14 per 1000 (women-years) in 73 women aged 26-75 years (mean 53.5 years). AB-MRI acquisition times (mean 9.63 min) and table times (mean 15.07 min) were significantly shorter than those of SOC-BMRI (means 19.46 and 36.3 min, respectively) (p < .001). Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were identical for AB3 and SOC-BMRI (93%, 100%, 93%, 16.7%, and 100%, respectively). AB-MRI with AB1 and AB2 had significantly lower specificity (AB1 = 73.6%, AB2 = 77.8%), positive predictive values (AB1 = 5%, AB2 = 5.9%), and accuracy (AB1 = 74%, AB2 = 78%) than those of SOC-BMRI (p = .002 for AB1, p = .01 for AB2).

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI was acquired significantly faster than SOC-BMRI and its diagnostic performance was non-inferior. Inclusion of T2 and fat-only images was necessary to achieve non-inferiority by multireader evaluation.

Primary Care Providers Underutilize Breast Screening MRI for High-Risk Women

OBJECTIVE

Supplemental MRI screening for women at high risk for breast cancer is underutilized. Our study assessed how primary care providers in our healthcare network identify high-risk women and recommend high-risk screening breast MRI.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to providers in OB/GYN, family, and internal medicine departments between 1/14/19 and 3/22/19. The survey inquired about methods used to assess breast cancer risk, familiarity with the American Cancer Society's definition of high-risk, and whether screening breast MRI is recommended for high-risk women.

RESULTS

Response rate was 17% (89/524). After excluding providers who ordered ≤10 mammograms per year, the study included 75 respondents, who mostly ordered 10-1000 mammograms per year and supported annual/biennial screening mammogram starting at age 40-50 years. More providers reported estimating breast cancer risk qualitatively (with family, clinical history, and/or breast density) than quantitatively with risk calculators (73/75, 97% vs 22/75, 29%). A minority of providers (23/75, 31%) correctly defined high lifetime risk. Only 9/75 (12%) providers recommended screening MRI for high-risk women. Use of quantitative risk calculators or ability to correctly define high-risk were not associated with likelihood of recommending MRI screening. More providers had recommended MRI for screening in the setting of dense breasts than for high-risk screening (23/75, 31% vs 9/75, 12%).

CONCLUSION

Primary care providers at our institution did not routinely recommend screening MRI for high-risk women. Risk assessment and reporting at the time of mammography may improve MRI utilization and is an opportunity for radiologists to add value and directly participate in patient-centered care.

Abbreviated Breast MRI: Road to Clinical Implementation

Breast MRI offers high sensitivity for breast cancer detection, with preferential detection of high-grade invasive cancers when compared to mammography and ultrasound. Despite the clear benefits of breast MRI in cancer screening, its cost, patient tolerance, and low utilization remain key issues. Abbreviated breast MRI, in which only a select number of sequences and postcontrast imaging are acquired, exploits the high sensitivity of breast MRI while reducing table time and reading time to maximize availability, patient tolerance, and accessibility. Worldwide studies of varying patient populations have demonstrated that the comparable diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated breast MRI is comparable to a full diagnostic protocol, highlighting the emerging role of abbreviated MRI screening in patients with an intermediate and high lifetime risk of breast cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize the background and current literature relating to abbreviated MRI, highlight various protocols utilized in current multicenter clinical trials, describe workflow and clinical implementation issues, and discuss the future of abbreviated protocols, including advanced MRI techniques.

Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group.

RESULTS

For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.

Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I² = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I² = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I² = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I² = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I² = 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.

Feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) screening in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer as a screening tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1880 screening AB-MRIs in 763 women with a PH of breast cancer (median age, 55 years; range, 23-89 years) between October 2015 and October 2016. The total acquisition times of AB-MRI were 8.3 min and 2.8 min with and without T2-weighted imaging, respectively. The tissue diagnosis or one-year follow-up status was used as the reference standard. The characteristics of tumor recurrences detected on AB-MRI screenings were analyzed. The cancer detection rates (CDRs) and additional CDRs for the 1st round and overall rounds of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values for recall (PPV1) and biopsy (PPV3) for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The diagnostic performance of the combination of mammography and ultrasonography was compared with that of AB-MRI by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen of a total of 21 recurrences were detected on the 1st round of AB-MRI screening: 93.3% were node-negative T1 tumors (median tumor size, 1.02 cm; range, 0.1-2 cm) or Tis; 66.7% were high-grade tumors; 8 of these 15 were mammographically and ultrasonographically occult. The CDR and additional CDR for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 0.019 and 0.010 per woman, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, PPV1 and PPV3 for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 100%, 96.0%, 14.3%, 13.8% and 58.3%, respectively. For detecting secondary cancer, AB-MRI showed a higher sensitivity and PPV than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (95.2%, 57.1% vs 47.6%, 38.5%). The area under the ROC curve was higher for AB-MRI (0.966; 95% CI: 0.951-0.978) than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (0.727; 95% CI: 0.694-0.759) (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI improved cancer detection with a high specificity, sensitivity and PPV in women with a PH of breast cancer. AB-MRI could be a useful screening tool for detecting secondary cancer considering its high diagnostic performance and short examination time.

Outcomes of screening mammography in women less than 40 prior to fertility treatment: a retrospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

There are currently no evidence-based guidelines regarding breast cancer screening in women under 40 prior to initiating assisted reproductive technology (ART). The prevalence of abnormal findings on screening mammography in this population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe screening mammography outcomes in women less than 40 years old, referred for the indication of pre-ART.

MATERIALS, METHODS, PROCEDURES

This is a retrospective review of women less than 40 years old presenting for screening mammography prior to ART between January 2010 and March 2017. Clinical history, breast cancer risk factors, imaging and pathology results were gathered from the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

The study included 80 women. Mean patient age was 37 years (range 34-39 years). Sixty-seven (84%) had negative or benign screening (BI-RADS 1 or 2) and 13 (16%) were recalled for diagnostic imaging (BI-RADS 0). Four of 13 (31%) recalled women were given BI-RADS 1 or 2 at diagnostic work-up, 4 (31%) were given a BI-RADS 3, and 5 (38%) were recommended for biopsy (BI-RADS 4). At patient request, 2 of 4 (50%) BI-RADS 3 cases underwent biopsy, for 7 total biopsies. Six (86%) biopsies yielded benign results and 1 (14%) yielded DCIS. Overall cancer yield was 1.3%.

CONCLUSION

In women under 40 who plan to undergo ART, screening mammography may identify breast malignancies. This may be of particular importance given many breast cancers are hormone sensitive, and thus fertility treatments may affect tumor growth. Future, larger studies are needed.