ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women

Image quality and diagnostic performance of deep learning reconstruction for diffusion- weighted imaging in 3 T breast MRI

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the image quality and the diagnostic value of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) compared with conventional single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) in 3 T breast MRI.

METHODS

Between January and July 2023, this single-center prospective study involved patients who underwent both clinical breast MRI and additional DWIs including accelerated (fast DLR) and high-resolution (HR DLR) for the research purpose. Two radiologists independently evaluated image quality, including fat suppression homogeneity, image blurring, artifacts, and lesion conspicuity. The optimal cutoff value of the ADC value was determined based on a separate dataset comprising 98 breast lesions in 81 patients from a previous retrospective study. ADC values from 62 breast lesions (55 malignant, 7 benign) in 50 patients were analyzed to compare diagnostic performance across three DWI datasets.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 50 patients (median age, 55.3 years). Fast DLR and HR DLR showed significantly better image quality compared to ss-EPI (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between two DLR methods (P > 0.05). DLR protocols consistently outperform ss-EPI for reducing artifacts across all lesion types and lesion size (P < 0.05). Mean ADC values measured in the phantom and clinical images were not significantly different across DWI protocols (P > 0.05). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance with the AUC of 0.846 in ss-EPI, 0.828 in fast DLR and 0.855 in HR DLR (P > 0.05). Fast DLR showed a significantly lower standard deviation of ADC values compared to ss-EPI in malignant, mass-type lesions and those smaller than 2 cm (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DLR DWI in 3T breast MRI improves image quality in both accelerated and high-resolution acquisition settings without compromising diagnostic performance. The use of DLR in DWI of breast MRI could enhance the efficiency and versatility of imaging protocols, offering significant clinical value.

Breast cancer survivorship

Breast cancer survivorship care transitions from active treatment to focus on surveillance and health maintenance. This review article discusses the crucial aspects of breast cancer survivorship, which include cancer surveillance, management of treatment side effects, implementation of a healthy lifestyle, and psychosocial support.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Breast Disease Imaging Referral Guideline

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Breast Disease Expert Panel consists of breast imaging radiologists, a high-risk breast clinician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 69 recommendation statements across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for referring asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic patients, and other scenarios requiring imaging of the breast.

Sources of Disparities in Surveillance Mammography Performance and Risk-Guided Recommendations for Supplemental Breast Imaging: A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Surveillance mammography is recommended for all women with a history of breast cancer. Risk-guided surveillance incorporating advanced imaging modalities based on individual risk of a second cancer could improve cancer detection. However, personalized surveillance may also amplify disparities.

METHODS

In simulated populations using inputs from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), we investigated race- and ethnicity-based disparities. Disparities were decomposed into those due to primary breast cancer and treatment characteristics, social determinants of health (SDOH) and differential error in second cancer ascertainment by modeling populations with or without variation across race and ethnicity in the distribution of these characteristics. We estimated effects of disparities on mammography performance and supplemental imaging recommendations stratified by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

In simulated cohorts based on 65,446 BCSC surveillance mammograms, when only cancer characteristics varied by race and ethnicity, mammograms for Black women had lower sensitivity compared with the overall population (64.1% vs. 71.1%). Differences between Black women and the overall population were larger when both cancer characteristics and SDOH varied by race and ethnicity (53.8% vs. 71.1%). Basing supplemental imaging recommendations on high predicted second cancer risk resulted in less frequent recommendations for Hispanic (6.7%) and Asian/Pacific Islander women (6.4%) compared with the overall population (10.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in cancer characteristics and SDOH led to disparities in surveillance mammography performance and recommendations for supplemental imaging.

IMPACT

Risk-guided surveillance imaging may exacerbate disparities. Decision-makers should consider implications for equity in cancer outcomes resulting from implementing risk-guided screening programs. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

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.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Survival in Breast Cancer Patients with Bone Metastasis: A Multicenter Real-World Study on the Prognostic Impact of Intensive Postoperative Bone Scan after Initial Diagnosis of Breast Cancer (CSBrS-023)

The prognostic value of intensive postoperative bone scan (BS) screening, which is performed in asymptomatic patients with breast cancer (BC) after surgery, remained unclear. Patients diagnosed with BC with bone metastasis (BM) from five medical centers in China during the years 2005−2013 were retrospectively collected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the baseline characteristics. The survival outcomes were overall survival (OS) and overall survival after BM (OSABM). Among 1059 eligible patients, 304 underwent intensive postoperative BS while 755 did not. During a median follow-up of 6.67 years (95%CI 6.45, 7.21), intensive postoperative BS prolonged the median OS by 1.63 years (Log-Rank p = 0.006) and OSABM by 0.66 years (Log-Rank p = 0.002). Intensive postoperative BS was an independent prognostic factor for both OS (adjusted HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.64, 0.93, adjusted p = 0.006) and OSABM (adjusted HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.60, 0.86, adjusted p < 0.001). The prognostic value of intensive postoperative BS was consistently favorable for OS among clinical high-risk patients, including those with ages younger than 50, stage II, histology grade G3 and ER-Her2- subtype. This multicenter real-world study showed that intensive postoperative BS screening improved survival for BC patients with BM and should probably be recommended for postoperative surveillance, especially for patients at clinical high-risk.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Breast Surgery

Given that 20% to 40% of women who have percutaneous breast biopsy subsequently undergo breast surgery, knowledge of imaging women with a history of benign (including high-risk) disease or breast cancer is important. For women who had surgery for nonmalignant pathology, the surveillance recommendations are determined by their overall risk. Higher-than-average risk women with a history of benign surgery may require screening mammography starting at an earlier age before 40 and may benefit from screening MRI. For women with breast cancer who have undergone initial excision and have positive margins, imaging with diagnostic mammography or MRI can sometimes guide additional surgical planning. Women who have completed breast conservation therapy for cancer should get annual mammography and may benefit from the addition of MRI or ultrasound to their surveillance regimen. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of the Axilla

This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach of the axilla in various scenarios with broad differential diagnosis ranging from inflammatory to malignant etiologies. Controversies on the management of axillary adenopathy results in disagreement on the appropriate axillary imaging tests. Ultrasound is often the appropriate initial imaging test in several clinical scenarios. Clinical information (such as age, physical examinations, risk factors) and concurrent complete breast evaluation with mammogram, tomosynthesis, or MRI impact the type of initial imaging test for the axilla. Several impactful clinical trials demonstrated that selected patient's population can received sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection with similar overall survival, and axillary lymph node dissection is a safe alternative as the nodal staging procedure for clinically node negative patients or even for some node positive patients with limited nodal tumor burden. This approach is not universally accepted, which adversely affect the type of imaging tests considered appropriate for axilla. This document is focused on the initial imaging of the axilla in various scenarios, with the understanding that concurrent or subsequent additional tests may also be performed for the breast. 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.

Clinical impact of follow-up imaging on mortality in Korean breast cancer patients: A national cohort study

Background

As the incidence of breast cancer has increased and the survival rate has improved, supporting the optimal follow‐up strategy has become an important issue. This study aimed to evaluate follow‐up imaging usage after breast cancer surgery and the implications on mortality in Korea.

Methods

This study included 96,575 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 2002–2010 and registered in the Korea Central Cancer Registry, Statistics Korea, and Korean National Health Insurance Service. We evaluated the frequency of breast imaging (mammography and breast MRI) and systemic imaging for evaluating the presence of distant metastasis (chest CT, bone scan, and PET‐CT), and performed analyses to determine if they had an effect on mortality.

Results

The median follow‐up period was 72.9 months (range: 12.0–133.3) and 7.5% of the patients died. Among all patients, 54.7%, 16.2%, 45.6%, and 8.5% received 3 or more mammograms, chest CTs, bone scans, and PET‐CTs within 3 years after surgery, respectively. Among patients who developed recurrence after 3 or more years, a comparison of overall mortality and breast‐cancer specific mortality according to the frequency of imaging by modality (<3 vs. ≥3) showed that only mammography had significantly reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84, p < 0.0001; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This study showed that only frequent mammography reduced mortality and frequent imaging follow‐up with other modalities did not when compared to less frequent imaging. This finding provides supportive evidence that clinicians need to adhere to the current guidelines for surveillance after breast cancer surgery.

Strategies for the treatment of breast cancer: from classical drugs to mathematical models

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and generally affects women. It is a heterogeneous disease that presents different entities, different biological characteristics, and differentiated clinical behaviors. With this in mind, this literature review had as its main objective to analyze the path taken from the simple use of classical drugs to the application of mathematical models, which through the many ongoing studies, have been considered as one of the reliable strategies, explaining the reasons why chemotherapy is not always successful. Besides, the most commonly mentioned strategies are immunotherapy, which includes techniques and therapies such as the use of antibodies, cytokines, antitumor vaccines, oncolytic and genomic viruses, among others, and nanoparticles, including metallic, magnetic, polymeric, liposome, dendrimer, micelle, and others, as well as drug reuse, which is a process by which new therapeutic indications are found for existing and approved drugs. The most commonly used pharmacological categories are cardiac, antiparasitic, anthelmintic, antiviral, antibiotic, and others. For the efficient development of reused drugs, there must be a process of exchange of purposes, methods, and information already available, and for their better understanding, computational mathematical models are then used, of which the methods of blind search or screening, based on the target, knowledge, signature, pathway or network and the mechanism to which it is directed, stand out. To conclude it should be noted that these different strategies can be applied alone or in combination with each other always to improve breast cancer treatment.

Post-operative imaging surveillance of breast cancer patients status post lumpectomy with BioZorb implant placement

The evolving nature of newer surgical techniques and devices adds to the challenge of interpreting breast imaging in the post lumpectomy setting. The BioZorb surgical marker placed at lumpectomy sites for post-operative radiation targeting has its own distinct imaging appearance on each modality. Determining the expected follow-up imaging findings unique to this relatively new device is an ongoing endeavor with minimal literature on this topic. The following series of cases of post BioZorb breast surveillance are one of the first reported in the literature to provide examples of developing asymmetries and new or enlarging masses adjacent to the BioZorb site along with the final pathologic diagnosis for each case. Pathology findings range from fat necrosis and foreign body reaction to recurrent disease.

Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Background Among breast cancer survivors, detecting a breast cancer when it is asymptomatic (rather than symptomatic) improves survival; thus, imaging surveillance in these patients is warranted. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is used for screening, but data on DBT for surveillance in this high-risk population are limited. Purpose To determine whether DBT leads to improved screening performance metrics when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors. Materials and Methods In this study, screening mammograms obtained in breast cancer survivors before and after DBT implementation were retrospectively reviewed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 for the DBT group). Mammograms were interpreted by breast imaging radiologists with the assistance of computer-aided detection. Performance metrics and tumor characteristics between the groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019 and 22 887 mammographic examinations, respectively, in 8170 women (mean age, 62 years ± 12 [standard deviation]). In the DBT group, the abnormal interpretation rate was lower (5.8% [1331 of 22 887 examinations] vs 6.2% [563 of 9019 examinations]; odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.91; P = .001) and specificity was higher (95.0% [21 502 of 22 644 examinations] vs 94.7% [8424 of 8891 examinations]; OR, 1.23; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.41; P = .003) than in the digital mammography group. The cancer detection rates did not differ (8.3 per 1000 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; P = .07). The proportions of screening-detected invasive cancers, versus in situ cancers, were similar (74% [140 of 189 cancers] in the DBT group vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; P = .69). Of 86 interval cancers, 58% (50 of 86 cancers) manifested with symptoms, and 33% (28 of 86 cancers) were detected at screening MRI. Conclusion Among breast cancer survivors, screening with digital breast tomosynthesis led to fewer false-positive results and higher specificity but did not affect cancer detection. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.