Imaging Changes and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Active Monitoring for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Seven-Year Follow-up Study

Reducing Errors in Breast Imaging: Insights From Missed and Near-Missed Cases

Errors and misdiagnosis in breast imaging are significant concerns for breast imaging radiologists due to the negative impacts on patients and the high legal risks. Using missed and nearly missed diagnoses of breast cancer cases, this article introduces radiologists to common factors contributing to errors and misdiagnosis in breast imaging, including radiologist errors, improper imaging techniques, lesion characteristics, and work environment challenges. The article also provides practical recommendations and potential strategies to reduce these errors focusing on actions applicable to individual radiologists. Understanding the common causes of diagnostic errors in breast imaging and implementing targeted mitigating strategies can help radiologists improve diagnostic precision, reduce malpractice risk, and enhance patient care.

AI analytics can be used as imaging biomarkers for predicting invasive upgrade of ductal carcinoma in situ

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the quantitative abnormality scores provided by artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection/diagnosis (CAD) for mammography interpretation can be used to predict invasive upgrade in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed on percutaneous biopsy.

METHODS

Four hundred forty DCIS in 420 women (mean age, 52.8 years) diagnosed via percutaneous biopsy from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. Mammographic characteristics were assessed based on imaging features (mammographically occult, mass/asymmetry/distortion, calcifications only, and combined mass/asymmetry/distortion with calcifications) and BI-RADS assessments. Routine pre-biopsy 4-view digital mammograms were analyzed using AI-CAD to obtain abnormality scores (AI-CAD score, ranging 0-100%). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictive mammographic variables after adjusting for clinicopathological variables. A subgroup analysis was performed with mammographically detected DCIS.

RESULTS

Of the 440 DCIS, 117 (26.6%) were upgraded to invasive cancer. Three hundred forty-one (77.5%) DCIS were detected on mammography. The multivariable analysis showed that combined features (odds ratio (OR): 2.225, p = 0.033), BI-RADS 4c or 5 assessments (OR: 2.473, p = 0.023 and OR: 5.190, p < 0.001, respectively), higher AI-CAD score (OR: 1.009, p = 0.007), AI-CAD score ≥ 50% (OR: 1.960, p = 0.017), and AI-CAD score ≥ 75% (OR: 2.306, p = 0.009) were independent predictors of invasive upgrade. In mammographically detected DCIS, combined features (OR: 2.194, p = 0.035), and higher AI-CAD score (OR: 1.008, p = 0.047) were significant predictors of invasive upgrade.

CONCLUSION

The AI-CAD score was an independent predictor of invasive upgrade for DCIS. Higher AI-CAD scores, especially in the highest quartile of ≥ 75%, can be used as an objective imaging biomarker to predict invasive upgrade in DCIS diagnosed with percutaneous biopsy.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Noninvasive imaging features including the quantitative results of AI-CAD for mammography interpretation were independent predictors of invasive upgrade in lesions initially diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ via percutaneous biopsy and therefore may help decide the direction of surgery before treatment.

KEY POINTS

• Predicting ductal carcinoma in situ upgrade is important, yet there is a lack of conclusive non-invasive biomarkers. • AI-CAD scores-raw numbers, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75%-predicted ductal carcinoma in situ upgrade independently. • Quantitative AI-CAD results may help predict ductal carcinoma in situ upgrade and guide patient management.