Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition

Screening in Women With BRCA Mutations Revisited

Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations are at high risk for the development of breast cancer. This article reviews the current evidence for breast cancer screening of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic gene mutations if they have not undergone prophylactic mastectomy. It will review the current evidence-based imaging recommendations for different modalities and ages of screening initiation in screening this patient population at high risk. Special considerations in transgender BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are also discussed.

Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Ultrasound, Full-Field Digital Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Relation to Breast Composition

This single center study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the group of patients with breast American College of Radiology (ACR) categories C and D as well as A and B with FFDM. The study involved 297 patients who underwent ABUS and FFDM. Breast types C and D were determined in 40% of patients with FFDM and low- energy CEM. CEM was performed on 76 patients. Focal lesions were found in 131 patients, of which 115 were histopathologically verified. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 40 from 48 with ABUS, 13 with FFDM and 21 with CEM. Compliance in determining the number of foci was 82% for FFDM and 91% for both CEM and ABUS. In breast types C and D, 72% of all lesions were found with ABUS, 56% with CEM and 29% with FFDM (p = 0.008, p = 0.000); all invasive cancers were diagnosed with ABUS, 83% with CEM and 59% with FFDM (p = 0.000, p = 0.023); 100% DCIS were diagnosed with ABUS, 93% with CEM and 59% with FFDM. The size of lesions from histopathology in breast ACR categories A and B was 14-26 mm, while in breast categories C and D was 11-37 mm. In breast categories C and D, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 78.05, 85.37, 92.68; specificity: 40, 13.33, 8.33; PPV (positive predictive value): 78.05, 72.92, 77.55; NPV (negative predictive value): 40, 25, 25, accuracy: 67.86, 66.07, 73.58. In breast categories A and B, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 81.25, 93.75, 93.48; specificity: 18.18, 18.18, 16.67; PPV: 81.25, 83.33, 89.58; NPV: 18.18, 40, 25; accuracy: 69.49, 79.66, 84.62. The sensitivity of the combination of FFDM and ABUS was 100 for all types of breast categories; the accuracy was 75 in breast types C and D and 81.36 in breast types A and B. The study confirms the predominance of C and D breast anatomy types and the low diagnostic performance of FFDM within that group and indicates ABUS and CEM as potential additive methods in breast cancer diagnostics.

SEOM clinical guideline on heritable TP53-related cancer syndrome (2022)

Li-Fraumeni syndrome is caused by heterozygous germline pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene. It involves a high risk of a variety of malignant tumors in childhood and adulthood, the main ones being premenopausal breast cancer, soft tissue sarcomas and osteosarcomas, central nervous system tumors, and adrenocortical carcinomas. The variability of the associated clinical manifestations, which do not always fit the classic criteria of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, has led the concept of SLF to extend to a more overarching cancer predisposition syndrome, termed hereditable TP53-related cancer syndrome (hTP53rc). However, prospective studies are needed to assess genotype-phenotype characteristics, as well as to evaluate and validate risk-adjusted recommendations. This guideline aims to establish the basis for interpreting pathogenic variants in the TP53 gene and provide recommendations for effective screening and prevention of associated cancers in carrier individuals.

Advances in PET/CT Imaging for Breast Cancer

One out of eight women will be affected by breast cancer during her lifetime. Imaging plays a key role in breast cancer detection and management, providing physicians with information about tumor location, heterogeneity, and dissemination. In this review, we describe the latest advances in PET/CT imaging of breast cancer, including novel applications of 18F-FDG PET/CT and the development and testing of new agents for primary and metastatic breast tumor imaging and therapy. Ultimately, these radiopharmaceuticals may guide personalized approaches to optimize treatment based on the patient's specific tumor profile, and may become a new standard of care. In addition, they may enhance the assessment of treatment efficacy and lead to improved outcomes for patients with a breast cancer diagnosis.

Breast cancer: an up-to-date review and future perspectives

Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide. The occurrence of breast cancer is associated with many risk factors, including genetic and hereditary predisposition. Breast cancers are highly heterogeneous. Treatment strategies for breast cancer vary by molecular features, including activation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormonal receptors (estrogen receptor [ER] and progesterone receptor [PR]), gene mutations (e.g., mutations of breast cancer 1/2 [BRCA1/2] and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha [PIK3CA]) and markers of the immune microenvironment (e.g., tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte [TIL] and programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]). Early-stage breast cancer is considered curable, for which local-regional therapies (surgery and radiotherapy) are the cornerstone, with systemic therapy given before or after surgery when necessary. Preoperative or neoadjuvant therapy, including targeted drugs or immune checkpoint inhibitors, has become the standard of care for most early-stage HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer, followed by risk-adapted post-surgical strategies. For ER-positive early breast cancer, endocrine therapy for 5-10 years is essential. Advanced breast cancer with distant metastases is currently considered incurable. Systemic therapies in this setting include endocrine therapy with targeted agents, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors for hormone receptor-positive disease, anti-HER2 targeted therapy for HER2-positive disease, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and immunotherapy currently for part of triple-negative disease. Innovation technologies of precision medicine may guide individualized treatment escalation or de-escalation in the future. In this review, we summarized the latest scientific information and discussed the future perspectives on breast cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening

Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on the sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones. Insufficient evidence exists to determine whether transgender people undergoing hormone therapy have an overall lower, average, or higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to birth-sex controls. Furthermore, there are no longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer screening in the transgender population. In the absence of definitive data, current evidence is based on data extrapolated from cisgender studies and a limited number of cohort studies and case reports published on the transgender community. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Medical guidelines for Li-Fraumeni syndrome 2019, version 1.1

Li–Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary tumor that exhibits autosomal dominant inheritance. LFS develops in individuals with a pathogenic germline variant of the cancer-suppressor gene, TP53 (individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant). The number of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant among the general population is said to be 1 in 500 to 20,000. Meanwhile, it is found in 1.6% (median value, range of 0–6.7%) of patients with pediatric cancer and 0.2% of adult patients with cancer. LFS is diagnosed by the presence of germline TP53 pathogenic variants. However, patients can still be diagnosed with LFS even in the absence of a TP53 pathogenic variant if the familial history of cancers fit the classic LFS diagnostic criteria. It is recommended that TP53 genetic testing be promptly performed if LFS is suspected. Chompret criteria are widely used for the TP53 genetic test. However, as there are a certain number of cases of LFS that do not fit the criteria, if LFS is suspected, TP53 genetic testing should be performed regardless of the criteria. The probability of individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant developing cancer in their lifetime (penetrance) is 75% for men and almost 100% for women. The LFS core tumors (breast cancer, osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, brain tumor, and adrenocortical cancer) constitute the majority of cases; however, various types of cancers, such as hematological malignancy, epithelial cancer, and pediatric cancers, such as neuroblastoma, can also develop. Furthermore, approximately half of the cases develop simultaneous or metachronous multiple cancers. The types of TP53 pathogenic variants and factors that modify the functions of TP53 have an impact on the clinical presentation, although there are currently no definitive findings. There is currently no cancer preventive agent for individuals with TP53 pathogenic variant. Surgical treatments, such as risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy warrant further investigation. Theoretically, exposure to radiation could induce the onset of secondary cancer; therefore, imaging and treatments that use radiation should be avoided as much as possible. As a method to follow-up LFS, routine cancer surveillance comprising whole-body MRI scan, brain MRI scan, breast MRI scan, and abdominal ultrasonography (US) should be performed immediately after the diagnosis. However, the effectiveness of this surveillance is unknown, and there are problems, such as adverse events associated with a high rate of false positives, overdiagnosis, and sedation used during imaging as well as negative psychological impact. The detection rate of cancer through cancer surveillance is extremely high. Many cases are detected at an early stage, and treatments are low intensity; thus, cancer surveillance could contribute to an improvement in QOL, or at least, a reduction in complications associated with treatment. With the widespread use of genomic medicine, the diagnosis of LFS is unavoidable, and a comprehensive medical care system for LFS is necessary. Therefore, clinical trials that verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the program, comprising LFS registry, genetic counseling, and cancer surveillance, need to be prepared.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer

Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection but is currently limited to screening women at high risk due to limited specificity and test accessibility. However, specificity of MR imaging improves with successive rounds of screening, and abbreviated approaches have the potential to increase access and decrease cost. There is growing evidence to support supplemental MR imaging in moderate-risk women, and current guidelines continue to evolve. Functional imaging has the potential to maximize survival benefit of screening. Leveraging MR imaging as a possible primary screening tool is therefore also being investigated in average-risk women.

Baseline Screening MRI Uptake and Findings in Women with ≥ 20% Lifetime Risk of Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The American Cancer Society recommends screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a ≥ 20% lifetime breast cancer risk. This study assesses the outcomes of baseline MRI screens in women from a high-risk breast clinic (HRBC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients from our institution's HRBC, excluding those with prior breast cancer and predisposing genetic mutations. Screening MRI was recommended for a lifetime risk of ≥ 20% using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. We determined baseline MRI results, biopsy rates, and frequency of MRI-detected high-risk lesions (HRLs) and breast cancers.

RESULTS

Overall, 319 women attended our HRBC; median age was 48 years and 4.7% had prior atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ. Screening MRI was recommended for 282 patients, of whom 196 (69.5%) completed a baseline screen. A Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) 3 or 4 finding occurred in 19.6% of patients; 23 (12.3%) required 6-month follow-up MRI, 16 (8.6%) underwent core biopsy, and 4 (2.1%) underwent excisional biopsy after initial core. An additional 7 (3.7%) patients had a non-breast incidental finding. An HRL was identified in 2 (1.1%) patients (atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasia, respectively), and 2 (1.1%) were diagnosed with T1N0 breast cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of an HRBC, 70% of women with a ≥ 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer pursued screening MRI when recommended. On baseline screen, the rate of MRI-detected breast cancer was low (1%); however, malignancies were mammographically occult and identified at an early stage. Despite a low cancer rate, nearly one in four women required additional diagnostic investigation. Prescreening counselling should include a discussion of this possibility, and longer-term follow-up of screening MRI is needed in this high-risk population.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for risk-stratified screening in women with BRCA mutations or high familial risk for breast cancer: are we there yet?

PURPOSE

Women at an elevated lifetime risk for breast cancer (BC), including carriers of pathogenic mutations in BC predisposition genes, are recommended intensified BC screening that includes annual mammography (MG) and annual breast MRI. Controversy exists regarding the clinical utility of MRI as a screening tool in high-risk women. This paper is intended to review recent advances and remaining areas of uncertainty in order to further facilitate the incorporation of breast MRI into an intensified BC screening protocol for women at high familial risk and BRCA carriers.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of medical oncologists and a radiologist specializing in the treatment of BC and high-risk patients searched PubMed to identify studies deemed to have the highest scientific value. Since none of the initial MRI studies were randomized, meta-analyses examining breast MRI screening in high-risk women were prioritized for inclusion.

RESULTS

Breast MRI performs well in high-risk women, including mutation carriers. Breast MRI screening allows for the detection of early stage, likely curable invasive BC. It is mandatory that radiologists receive appropriate MRI training to reduce false positives and unnecessary biopsies. MRI screening is cost-effective in the highest risk patients and new clinical trials are open examining abbreviated and ultra-fast MRI techniques as a tool to drive down costs and improve specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

As breast MRI is recommended as part of an intensified screening program in addition to mammography for high-risk women, it important that health care providers understand the benefits and limitations of this screening modality for high-risk women, as well as areas for further investigation.

The Utility of Short-Interval Follow-Up for Baseline High-Risk Screening Breast MRI

OBJECTIVE

Patients with a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer undergo annual screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting at age 30. A proportion of these patients are subsequently required to undergo short-interval follow-up MRI 6 months after their baseline examination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility and outcome of these short-interval follow-up examinations in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 523 patients who received their baseline high-risk breast screening MRI at our institution between 2013 and 2017. The proportion of patients who received a short-interval follow-up MRI at 6 months was recorded. The findings at baseline and follow-up MRI were recorded, as well as the outcomes and results of any interventions performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-six (17.6%) patients (age range: 25-67, mean age: 41) received a short-interval follow-up MRI following their baseline screening examination. Indications for follow-up included moderate to marked background parenchymal enhancement, nonmass enhancement, and likely benign enhancing mass. Of the 92 patients, 5 (5.4%) went on to have a biopsy, with none revealing a malignant pathology. The remainder either returned to routine screening (91.3%) or received further imaging in the form of ultrasound or additional follow-up MRI (3.3%).

CONCLUSION

Short-interval follow-up breast MRI in high-risk patients after a baseline screening study with likely benign findings is unlikely to yield clinically significant findings. This retrospective study can be considered a starting point for additional future work looking at the rate, indications, and yield of short-interval follow-up following baseline high-risk screening breast MRI studies.

Overview of Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

Screening mammography saves lives. The mainstay of screening has been mammography. Multiple alternative options, however, for supplemental imaging are now available. Some are just improved anatomic delineation whereas others include physiology added to anatomy. A third group (molecular imaging) is purely physiologic. This article describes and compares the available options and for which patient populations they should be used.

Reasons for (non)participation in supplemental population-based MRI breast screening for women with extremely dense breasts

AIM

To determine the willingness of women with extremely dense breasts to undergo breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a research setting, and to examine reasons for women to participate or not.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2011 and 2015, 8,061 women (50-75 years) were invited for supplemental MRI as part of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01315015), after a negative screening mammography in the national population-based mammography screening programme. Demographics of participants and non-participants were compared. All invitees were asked to report reasons for (non)participation. Ethical approval was obtained. Participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Of the 8,061 invitees, 66% answered that they were interested, and 59% eventually participated. Participants were on average 54-years old (interquartile range: 51-59 years), comparable to women with extremely dense breasts in the population-based screening programme (55 years). Women with higher socio-economic status (SES) were more often interested in participation than women with lower SES (68% versus 59%, p<0.001). The most frequently stated reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences and/or self-reported contraindications to MRI" (27%) and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening" (21%). "Expected personal health benefit" (68%) and "contribution to science" (43%) were the most frequent reasons for participation.

CONCLUSION

Of women invited for MRI because of extremely dense breasts, 59% participated. Common reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences" and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening". In case of future implementation, availability of precise evidence on benefits and harms might reduce this anxiety.

Genetic assessment wait time indicators in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program

Background

The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) expanded in July 2011 to screen high‐risk women aged 30–69 with annual MRI and mammography. This study evaluated wait time (WT) indicators along the genetic assessment (GA) pathway for women referred to the High Risk OBSP.

Methods

Information was collected for 27,170 women referred to the High Risk OBSP from July 2011 to June 2015 and followed for GA until June 2016. Median duration (days), interquartile range (IQR) were measured for each WT indicator by program year, age, prior breast cancer, and risk criteria.

Results

Among 24,811 women who completed GA, 16,367 (66.0%) had genetic counseling only, 8,444 (34.0%) had counseling and testing and 8,027 (32.4%) met the high risk criteria. Median WT from physician visit to first screen was longer for women having genetic counseling only compared to those having counseling and testing (244 vs. 197 days). Women having counseling only also experienced the longest WT from physician visit to genetic counseling (88 days; IQR = 10–174), which increased by year from 71 to 100 days (p < .0001). Among women having counseling and testing, WT from physician visit to counseling was shortest for mutation carriers (39 days; IQR = 4–100). Median WT from testing to laboratory report issue was 41 days (IQR = 22–70) and 17 days to disclosure of test results (IQR = 7–33). Both WTs decreased with year and were shorter for mutation carriers (33 days, IQR = 19–58; 15 days, IQR = 7–28, respectively).

Conclusions

After implementation of the High Risk OBSP, women received timely genetic counseling, in particular those having counseling and testing. Effective triage models for physicians could reduce WT to GA after physician referral.

Systematic development of an abbreviated protocol for screening breast magnetic resonance imaging

Rationale & objectives

We sought to develop an abbreviated protocol (AP) for breast MRI that maximizes lesion detection by assessing each lesion not seen on mammography by each acquisition from a full diagnostic protocol (FDP).

Materials & methods

671 asymptomatic women (mean 55.7 years, range 40–80) with a negative mammogram were prospectively enrolled in this IRB approved study. All lesions on MRI not visualized on mammography were analyzed, reported, and suspicious lesions biopsied. In parallel, all FDP MRI acquisitions were scored by lesion to eventually create a high-yield AP.

Results

FDP breast MRI detected 452 findings not visible on mammography, including 17 suspicious lesions recommended for biopsy of which seven (PPV 41.2%) were malignant in six women. Mean size of the four invasive malignancies was 1.9 cm (range 0.7–4.1), all node negative; three lesions in two women were ductal carcinoma in situ. Nine biopsied lesions were benign, mean size 1.2 cm (range 0.6–2.0). All biopsied lesions were in women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense on mammography, n = 367), for a cancer detection rate of 16.3/1000 examinations in this subpopulation. These data were used to identify four high-yield acquisitions: T2, T1-pre-contrast, T1_1.5, and T1₆ to create the AP with a scan time of 7.5 min compared to 24 min for the FDP.

Conclusions

Our analysis of a FDP MRI in a mammographically negative group identified four high-yield acquisitions that could be used for rapid screening of women for breast cancer that retains critical information on morphology, histopathology, and kinetic activity to facilitate detection of suspicious lesions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4112-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666

BACKGROUND

Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer.

METHODS

Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

As the breast cancer survivor population increases, the topic of screening these women for recurrences is increasingly relevant. In our institution, we use both breast MRI and mammography in the surveillance of breast cancer survivors, although little data exists on the use of MRI in this setting. We present a retrospective analysis of our experience and compare the sensitivity and specificity of MRI vs. mammography in this setting.

METHODS

We identified women under 65 with a history of breast cancer and at least one follow-up MRI performed along with a mammogram done within 6 months of the MRI. We compared the outcomes of MRI and mammography in terms of biopsies performed as well as in detection of new cancers.

RESULTS

Of 617 charts reviewed, 249 patients met inclusion criteria, with 571 paired MRI/mammogram results. There were 27 biopsies performed due to MRI findings alone, 10 done due to mammographic findings alone, and 15 done based on abnormalities seen on both imaging modalities. There were 8 malignancies identified based on an abnormal MRI, 3 detected on both MRI and mammography, and none identified via mammography alone. Overall, MRI had a sensitivity of 84.6% (the 95% CI 54.6-98.1) and a specificity of 95.3% (the 95% CI 93.3-96.9); mammography a sensitivity of 23.1% (the 95% CI 5.0-53.8), and a specificity of 96.4% (the 95% CI 94.5-97.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast MRI is a useful surveillance modality in breast cancer survivors and may be more sensitive at detecting recurrences than mammography alone in this population.

Imaging surveillance programs for women at high breast cancer risk in Europe: Are women from ethnic minority groups adequately included? (Review)

Women from ethnic minority groups, including immigrants and refugees are reported to have low breast cancer (BC) screening rates. Active, culturally-sensitive outreach is vital for increasing participation of these women in BC screening programs. Women at high BC risk and who belong to an ethnic minority group are of special concern. Such women could benefit from ongoing trials aimed at optimizing screening strategies for early BC detection among those at increased BC risk. Considering the marked disparities in BC survival in Europe and its enormous and dynamic ethnic diversity, these issues are extremely timely for Europe. We systematically reviewed the literature concerning European surveillance studies that had imaging in the protocol and that targeted women at high BC risk. The aim of the present review was thereby to assess the likelihood that women at high BC risk from minority ethnic groups were adequately included in these surveillance programs. Twenty-seven research groups in Europe reported on their imaging surveillance programs for women at increased BC risk. The benefit of strategies such as inclusion of magnetic resonance imaging and/or more intensive screening was clearly documented for the participating women at increased BC risk. However, none of the reports indicated that sufficient outreach was performed to ensure that women at increased BC risk from minority ethnic groups were adequately included in these surveillance programs. On the basis of this systematic review, we conclude that the specific screening needs of ethnic minority women at increased BC risk have not yet been met in Europe. Active, culturally-sensitive outreach is needed to identify minority women at increased BC risk and to facilitate their inclusion in on-going surveillance programs. It is anticipated that these efforts would be most effective if coordinated with the development of European-wide, population-based approaches to BC screening.

Training and standards for performance, interpretation, and structured reporting for supplemental breast cancer screening

OBJECTIVE. To compensate for the reduction of mammography's sensitivity in women with dense breasts, supplemental screening can increase the cancer detection rate. The modalities suggested are MRI, which is the most sensitive and is indicated for women with the highest risk of breast cancer, and ultrasound, which is suggested for dense-breasted average-risk women. CONCLUSION. For decades, ultrasound has been a focused examination. Extending a handheld ultrasound examination to depict the entire breast requires formal didactic training and hands-on scanning to learn suitable, efficient methods. Automated options also require intensive training in performance and interpretation.

Effectiveness of Screening With Annual Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography: Results of the Initial Screen From the Ontario High Risk Breast Screening Program

Purpose

The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen women age 30 to 69 years at high risk for breast cancer with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first organized screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer.

Patients and Methods

Performance measures after assessment were compared with screening results for 2,207 women with initial screening examinations. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility: known mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or other gene predisposing to a markedly increased risk of breast cancer, untested first-degree relative of a gene mutation carrier, family history consistent with hereditary breast cancer syndrome and estimated personal lifetime breast cancer risk ≥ 25%, or radiation therapy to the chest (before age 30 years and at least 8 years previously).

Results

The recall rate was significantly higher among women who had abnormal MRI alone (15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%). Of the 35 breast cancers detected (16.3 per 1,000; 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (10.7 per 1,000; 95% CI, 6.7 to 15.8), and 25 (71%) were detected among women who were known gene mutation carriers (30.8 per 1,000, 95% CI, 19.4 to 43.7). The positive predictive value was highest for detection based on mammogram and MRI (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3% to 19.3%).

Conclusion

Screening with annual MRI combined with mammography has the potential to be effectively implemented into an organized breast screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. This could be considered an important management option for known BRCA gene mutation carriers.

Computer-aided diagnosis of breast DCE-MRI images using bilateral asymmetry of contrast enhancement between two breasts

Dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of breasts is an important imaging modality in breast cancer diagnosis with higher sensitivity but relatively lower specificity. The objective of this study is to investigate a new approach to help improve diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI examinations based on the automated detection and analysis of bilateral asymmetry of characteristic kinetic features between the left and right breast. An image dataset involving 130 DCE-MRI examinations was assembled and used in which 80 were biopsy-proved malignant and 50 were benign. A computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) scheme was developed to segment breast areas depicted on each MR image, register images acquired from the sequential MR image scan series, compute average contrast enhancement of all pixels in one breast, and a set of kinetic features related to the difference of contrast enhancement between the left and right breast, and then use a multi-feature based Bayesian belief network to classify between malignant and benign cases. A leave-one-case-out validation method was applied to test CAD performance. The computed area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.78 ± 0.04. The positive and negative predictive values are 0.77 and 0.64, respectively. The study indicates that bilateral asymmetry of kinetic features between the left and right breasts is a potentially useful image biomarker to enhance the detection of angiogenesis associated with malignancy. It also demonstrates the feasibility of applying a simple CAD approach to classify between malignant and benign DCE-MRI examinations based on this new image biomarker.

Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use

Approaches to imaging the breast with nuclear medicine and∕or molecular imaging methods have been under investigation since the late 1980s when a technique called scintimammography was first introduced. This review charts the progress of nuclear imaging of the breast over the last 20 years, covering the development of newer techniques such as breast specific gamma imaging, molecular breast imaging, and positron emission mammography. Key issues critical to the adoption of these technologies in the clinical environment are discussed, including the current status of clinical studies, the efforts at reducing the radiation dose from procedures associated with these technologies, and the relevant radiopharmaceuticals that are available or under development. The necessary steps required to move these technologies from bench to bedside are also discussed.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening

Mammography is the recommended method for breast cancer screening of women in the general population. However, mammography alone does not perform as well as mammography plus supplemental screening in high-risk women. Therefore, supplemental screening with MRI or ultrasound is recommended in selected high-risk populations. Screening breast MRI is recommended in women at high risk for breast cancer on the basis of family history or genetic predisposition. Ultrasound is an option for those high-risk women who cannot undergo MRI. Recent literature also supports the use of breast MRI in some women of intermediate risk, and ultrasound may be an option for intermediate-risk women with dense breasts. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other imaging modalities, such as thermography, breast-specific gamma imaging, positron emission mammography, and optical imaging, for breast cancer screening. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Background

Women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at high risk of developing breast cancer and, in British Columbia, Canada, are offered screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography to facilitate early detection. MRI is more sensitive than mammography but is more costly and produces more false positive results. The purpose of this study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of MRI screening for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in a Canadian setting.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model of annual MRI and mammography screening for BRCA1/2 carriers, using local data and published values. We calculated cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY), and conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of annual mammography plus MRI screening, compared to annual mammography alone, was $50,900/QALY. After incorporating parameter uncertainty, MRI screening is expected to be a cost-effective option 86% of the time at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY, and 53% of the time at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY. The model is highly sensitive to the cost of MRI; as the cost is increased from $200 to $700 per scan, the ICER ranges from $37,100/QALY to $133,000/QALY.

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of using MRI and mammography in combination to screen for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is finely balanced. The sensitivity of the results to the cost of the MRI screen itself warrants consideration: in jurisdictions with higher MRI costs, screening may not be a cost-effective use of resources, but improving the efficiency of MRI screening will also improve cost-effectiveness.

Screening MR imaging versus screening ultrasound: pros and cons

Data support greater sensitivity of MR imaging compared with mammography and ultrasound in high-risk populations, in particular BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 carriers. Screening ultrasound improves cancer yield versus mammography alone in high-risk patients and in patients with dense breasts and is less expensive. Drawbacks include low positive predictive value, operator dependence, and significant physician time expenditure. Advances, such as refinement of automated whole-breast ultrasound, new outcomes data from ultrasound-detected masses in BI-RADS 3 and 4a categories, and development of new MR imaging sequences that allow rapid screening, potentially without use of contrast, will likely reveal the most appropriate tool over time.

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk

CONTEXT

Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening.

OBJECTIVE

To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate.

RESULTS

A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results.

CONCLUSION

The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Choice of management of southern Chinese BRCA mutation carriers

BACKGROUND

Mutations in the BRCA genes confer greater risk of developing breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Families carrying the mutation can have intensive surveillance and take preventative measures. This is the first report on the uptake of such interventions in Chinese mutation carriers residing in Asia.

METHODS

Breast and ovarian cancer index patients and family members referred for genetic counselling and testing who are found to carry the BRCA mutations were included in this multicenter study.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer were found to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Forty-one tested family members also carried the mutations. Of the females, 85.7% of the index patients opted for breast surveillance and 23.8% for prophylactic mastectomy. Of the family members, 82.4% chose breast surveillance and 17.7% had prophylactic mastectomy. The majority of index patients and family members preferred ovarian surveillance (84 and 82.4%). Amongst the index patients, 32% decided for prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy; 17.6% of the family members who did not have history of ovarian cancer decided to have prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. All male index patients agreed to breast and prostate surveillance, including breast clinical examination and PSA monitoring. For those male family members found to be BRCA mutation carriers, 56.3% agreed to have breast surveillance and 66.7% agreed to have prostate surveillance. No index patient or family member agreed to any form of chemoprevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese BRCA mutation carriers have a higher uptake of cancer surveillance than prophylactic surgery and have a lack of interest in the use of chemoprevention drugs.

Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications

This article discusses recent developments in advanced derivative technologies associated with digital mammography. Digital breast tomosynthesis, its principles, development, and early clinical trials, are reviewed. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and combined imaging systems with digital mammography and ultrasound are also discussed. Although all these methods are currently research programs, they hold promise for improving cancer detection and characterization if early results are confirmed by clinical trials.

Emerging risk stratification approaches to cancer-associated thrombosis: risk factors, biomarkers and a risk score

Cancer patients are well-known to be at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the risk varies widely between patients and over the natural history of malignancy. Recent data have identified multiple clinical risk factors as well as biomarkers predictive of VTE. Risk factors include patient-associated factors such as age, obesity and medical comorbidities, cancer-associated factors such as site and stage of cancer, and treatment-associated factors, particularly chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy. Biomarkers associated with increased risk of cancer-associated VTE include leukocyte count, platelet count, and levels of tissue factor, P-selectin and D-dimer. This review focuses on the evidence for risk stratification of cancer patients, based on these risk factors and biomarkers, as well as a recently validated predictive model which can be used to identify patients at highest risk. Targeted thromboprophylaxis utilizing model-based and/or biomarker-based approaches may provide an optimal risk-benefit ratio and is currently the focus of ongoing clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in which MR imaging and screen-film mammography were used, alone and in combination, in women with BRCA1 mutations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Because this study did not involve primary data collection from individual patients, institutional review board approval was not needed. By using a simulation model, we compared three annual screening strategies for a cohort of 25-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers, as follows: (a) screen-film mammography, (b) MR imaging, and (c) combined MR imaging and screen-film mammography (combined screening). The model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, existing databases, and calibration. Costs (2007 U.S. dollars) and quality-of-life adjustments were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates and the medical literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in parameter estimates on model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, annual combined screening was most effective (44.62 QALYs), and had the highest cost ($110973), followed by annual MR imaging alone (44.50 QALYs, $108641), and annual mammography alone (44.46 QALYs, $100336). Adding annual MR imaging to annual mammographic screening cost $69125 for each additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, when the screening MR imaging cost increased to $960 (base case, $577), or breast cancer risk by age 70 years decreased below 58% (base case, 65%), or the sensitivity of combined screening decreased below 76% (base case, 94%), the cost of adding MR imaging to mammography exceeded $100000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Annual combined screening provides the greatest life expectancy and is likely cost-effective when the value placed on gaining an additional QALY is in the range of $50000-$100000.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09091086/-/DC1.

Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666

PURPOSE

To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.

RESULTS

Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.

CONCLUSION

Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Screening and prevention of breast cancer in primary care

Mammography remains the mainstay of breast cancer screening. There is little controversy that mammography reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by about 23% among women between the ages of 50 and 69 years, although the harms associated with false-positive results and overdiagnosis limit the net benefit of mammography. Women in their 70s may have a small benefit from screening mammography, but overdiagnosis increases in this age group as do competing causes of death. While new data support a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality for 40- to 49-year-old women after 10 years of screening, the net benefit is less compelling in part because of the lower incidence of breast cancer in this age group and because mammography is less sensitive and specific in women younger than 50 years. Digital mammography is more sensitive than film mammography in young women with similar specificity, but no improvements in breast cancer outcomes have been demonstrated. Magnetic resonance imaging may benefit the highest risk women. Randomized trials suggest that self-breast examination does more harm than good. Primary prevention with currently approved medications will have a negligible effect on breast cancer incidence. Public health efforts aimed at increasing mammography screening rates, promoting regular exercise in all women, maintaining a healthy weight, limiting alcohol intake, and limiting postmenopausal hormone therapy may help to continue the recent trend of lower breast cancer incidence and mortality among American women.

Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews breast cancer risk assessment and the rationale for current screening guidelines, including when to consider using supplemental screening with MRI or sonography in addition to mammography, and discusses other emerging technologies. Radiologists can help identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and can help to recommend when and which techniques to perform for this additional screening.

CONCLUSION

Mammography remains the mainstay of breast cancer screening. Mammography should be performed as digital imaging when possible in women with dense breasts. In women at high risk, particularly if they also have dense breasts, annual MRI is recommended, although further validation of outcomes is needed. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, especially those with other risk factors, and in high-risk women with dense breasts who are unable to tolerate MRI, supplemental sonography screening is an option at facilities with availability of qualified personnel. Developing technologies are not appropriate for screening at this time, although further study is encouraged.

MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: recommendations using an evidence-based approach

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk populations, including women with the BRCA mutation, using an evidence-based approach.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, PubMed, EBM Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database MEDSEARCH, and SCOPUS databases were accessed and searched for articles up to August 2007. Articles were collected using the following terms and medical subject headings (MeSH) that applied to the focused clinical question: "BRCA1" and "BRCA2" with "mammography," "MRI," "prevention," "screening," and "surveillance." References from retrieved articles were also used to identify relevant papers. Abstracts were screened and relevant papers retrieved. Retrieved papers were graded for quality. Summary performance measures were obtained by random effects modeling of study-specific performance estimates and standard errors derived from the multiple 2 x 2 tables. Additionally, studies meeting the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level 2b quality were reviewed.

RESULTS

In women with an increased risk without the BRCA gene, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.011 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.019), by mammography 0.005 (95% CI 0.002-0.008), and by a combination of both, 0.012 (95% CI 0.004-0.020). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.18), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24). In BRCA positive women, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.027 (95% CI 0.015-0.040), by mammography 0.010 (95% CI 0.005-0.016), and by a combination of both 0.031 (95% CI 0.018-0.045). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.19), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.07), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data support an essential role for screening MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer.