Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer

How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to determine the need for biopsy in patients referred from other clinics for the performance of biopsy with the suspicion of breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

112 patients were included in the study. It was decided that their biopsies be performed following examinations in other clinics and they presented to the breast radiology unit of our hospital for a second opinion. The demographic characteristics, diagnostic studies completed in the other centers, properties of lesions, decision made as a result of examinations and BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems) categorizations were recorded on the registration forms of the study patients. In addition, the quality of examinations, reasons of repeat tests, additional tests features and the last decision of our clinic were documented. The obtained data were analyzed in terms of re-examination, additional tests and change in the biopsy decision. Changes in the biopsy decisions for patients were specifically inquired.

RESULTS

The biopsy decisions were cancelled in our breast radiology unit for 63 out of 112 patients (56.3%) whose biopsy decisions were made at an external institute. For 42 patients, examinations made by the other clinics were deemed adequate, yet there was no need for biopsy in 22 of them. The biopsy decisions were cancelled for 27 out of 47 patients (57.4%) with repeat examination and 18 out of 28 patients (64.3%) with additional tests because of the insufficient test quality.

CONCLUSION

Incorrect, inadequate breast screening and false positivity were higher at inexperienced institutes.

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.

Psychological impact and acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray mammography: the MARIBS Study

Background:

As part of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Screening (MARIBS), Study women with a family history of breast cancer were assessed psychologically to determine the relative psychological impact and acceptability of annual screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional X-ray mammography (XRM).

Methods:

Women were assessed psychologically at baseline (4 weeks before MRI and XRM), immediately before, and immediately after, both MRI and XRM, and at follow-up (6 weeks after the scans).

Results:

Overall, both procedures were found to be acceptable with high levels of satisfaction (MRI, 96.3% and XRM, 97.7% NS) and low levels of psychological morbidity throughout, particularly at 6-week follow-up. Low levels of self-reported distress were reported for both procedures (MRI, 13.5% and XRM, 7.8%), although MRI was more distressing (P=0.005). Similarly, higher anticipatory anxiety was reported before MRI than before XRM (P=0.003). Relative to XRM, MRI-related distress was more likely to persist at 6 weeks after the scans in the form of intrusive MRI-related thoughts (P=0.006) and total MRI-related distress (P=0.014). More women stated that they intended to return for XRM (96.3%) than for MRI (88% P<0.0005). These effects were most marked for the first year of screening, although they were also statistically significant in subsequent years.

Conclusion:

Given the proven benefits of MRI in screening for breast cancer in this population, these data point to the urgent need to provide timely information and support to women undergoing MRI.

Breast cancer screening in women at high risk using MRI

A series of prospective comparative studies have demonstrated that MRI has approximately twice the sensitivity of X-ray mammography for screening women at high familial risk of breast cancer. In these studies, lesions have often been detected at an early stage, with disease being small and predominantly node negative. The diagnostic features in relation to risk and the biological behaviour of disease with risk category and age are being evaluated. The results of these studies have resulted in revised recommendations for screening for women at high risk of breast cancer. In this article, the results of the UK Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening (MARIBS) study of MRI screening are described, and compared with results from other studies. Risk factors identifying women who would benefit from MRI screening are discussed, MRI measurement methods are described, and the results of studies evaluating MRI and mammographic lesions in different risk groups are reviewed. Recommendations for screening women at high risk of breast cancer published by the American Cancer Society and from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK are summarised.

Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology: Theory, Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Examples

Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) enables the quantitative assessment of tumor status and has found application in both pre-clinical tumor models as well as clinical oncology. DCE-MRI requires the serial acquisition of images before and after the injection of a paramagnetic contrast agent so that the variation of MR signal intensity with time can be recorded for each image voxel. As the agent enters into a tissue, it changes the MR signal intensity from the tissue to a degree that depends on the local concentration. After the agent is transported out of the tissue, the MR signal intensity returns to its' baseline value. By analyzing the associated signal intensity time course using an appropriate mathematical model, physiological parameters related to blood flow, vessel permeability, and tissue volume fractions can be extracted for each voxel or region of interest.In this review we first discuss the basic physics of this methodology, and then present technical aspects of how DCE-MRI data are acquired and analyzed. We also discuss appropriate models of contrast agent kinetics and how these can be used to elucidate tissue characteristics of importance in cancer biology. We conclude by briefly summarizing some future goals and demands of DCE-MRI.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1–7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35–49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was £28 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to £11 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and £15 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

A test of performance of breast MRI interpretation in a multicentre screening study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and performance of radiologists interpreting breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two test sets of eight cases comprising cancers, benign disease, technical problems and parenchymal enhancement were prepared from two manufacturers' equipment (X and Y) and reported by 15 radiologists using the recording form and scoring system of the UK MRI breast screening study [(MAgnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS)]. Variations in assessments of morphology, kinetic scores and diagnosis were measured by assessing intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of reporting performances was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Intraobserver variation was seen in 13 (27.7%) of 47 of the radiologists' conclusions (four technical and seven pathological differences). Substantial interobserver variation was observed in the scores recorded for morphology, pattern of enhancement, quantification of enhancement and washout pattern. The overall sensitivity of breast MRI was high [88.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4-94.7%], combined with a specificity of 69.2% (95% CI 60.5-76.7%). The sensitivities were similar for the two test sets (P=.3), but the specificity was significantly higher for the Manufacturer X dataset (P<.001). ROC curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.92)

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation in all elements of the scoring system and in the overall diagnostic conclusions was observed between radiologists participating in MARIBS. High overall sensitivity was achieved with moderate specificity. Manufacturer-related differences in specificities possibly occurred because the numerical thresholds set for the scoring system were not optimised for both equipment manufacturers. Scoring systems developed on one equipment software may not be transferable to other manufacturers.

Reading Protocol for Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Images of the Breast: Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis

PURPOSE

To prospectively determine sensitivity and specificity of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a screening and symptomatic population by using independent double reading, with histologic or cytologic results or a minimum 18-month follow-up as the standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Informed consent and ethical approval were obtained. Reader performance was analyzed in 44 radiologists at 18 centers from 1541 examinations, including 1441 screening examinations in 638 high-risk women aged 24-51 years (mean, 40.5 years) and 100 examinations in symptomatic women aged 23-81 years (mean, 49.2 years). A screening protocol of dynamic T1-weighted three-dimensional imaging and 0.2 mmol/kg gadolinium-based intravenous contrast agent was used. Logistic and Poisson regressions were used to analyze reader performance in relation to experience. Correlation between readers was determined with kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed according to reader, field strength, machine type, and histologic results.

RESULTS

The proportion of studies with lesions analyzed reduced significantly with reader experience (odds ratio, 0.84 per 6 months; P < .001), and number of regions per lesion analyzed also diminished (incidence rate ratio, 0.98 per 6 months; P = .047). The two readers for each study agreed 87% of the time, with a moderately good kappa statistic of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.58). By taking the reading with the highest score (most likely to be malignant) from each double-read study, sensitivity was 91% (95% CI: 83%, 96%) and specificity was 81% (95% CI: 79%, 83%). Single readings had 7% lower sensitivity (95% CI: 4%, 11%) and 7% higher specificity (95% CI: 6%, 7%). Sensitivity did not differ between MR imager manufacturers or between 1.0- and 1.5-T field strength, but there were significant differences in specificity for machine type (P = .001) and for field strength adjusted for manufacturer (P = .001). Specificity, but not sensitivity, was higher in women younger than 50 years (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Independent double reading by 44 radiologists blinded to mammography results showed sensitivity and specificity acceptable for screening; sensitivity was higher when two readings were used, at the cost of specificity. Interreader correlation was moderately good, and evidence of learning was seen. Equipment manufacturer, field strength, and age affected specificity but not sensitivity.

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

BACKGROUND

Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.

METHODS

We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years.

FINDINGS

We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92%vs 23%, p=0.004).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer?

Despite some controversy in recent years, the majority of experts agree on the evidence for effectiveness of breast screening by mammography for women aged 50 years and above, but for those under 50 years, the picture is much less clear. However, the issue remains of importance both to policy makers and to individual women; although the incidence of breast cancer is lower at younger ages, the life years lost due to cancers diagnosed below 50 years amount to a third of all those lost due to the disease.

Guidelines for the management of women at increased familial risk of breast cancer

The Guidelines were prepared by an international expert panel on behalf of the Association of Breast Surgery. The majority of women who have a relative with breast cancer are not themselves at significantly increased risk. The Guidelines propose a management strategy, including genetic assessment, chemo-prevention, risk reducing surgery and radiological screening, based on risk assessment of the individual. The Guidelines are based on evidence where available, or on consensus statements from surgeons, radiologists, geneticists and clinical psychologists.

What is the recall rate of breast MRI when used for screening asymptomatic women at high risk?

Breast screening acceptability is dependent on sensitivity and recall rate. We aimed to establish the recall rate for MRI and mammography, separately and together, when screening a cohort of women at high genetic risk. Women aged 35-49 years in the MARIBS study form the cohort. We analysed the recall rate, the number of extra tests and their effectiveness. Wilcoxon Rank test was used to estimate the effect of age and logistic regression with robust variance the effect of mammographic density on recall rates. The first 726 screening studies took place in 415 women. Following 86 of these recall occurred, comprising 140 additional investigations. 28 of the cases were resolved without further MRI, and 18 women had more than 2 additional tests. Neither age nor mammographic density was associated with recall. MRI had a recall of rate of 10.19%, and mammography 4.00%. The two techniques largely recalled different cases and 10 cases only (11.62% of those recalled) were abnormal by both tests. The two together had a recall rate of 11.85%. Recall rates varied widely between centres of the study. Breast MRI in asymptomatic high-risk women age 35-49 years largely recalls different women from mammography. The combined figure of approximately 12% may be acceptable for screening and will be useful for planning similar studies.

A method of coil localization for breast lesions seen only on MRI

Breast lesions may be identified on MRI that are not shown on mammography or ultrasound owing to the high sensitivity and relatively poor specificity of contrast enhanced MRI. Techniques for diagnostic biopsy of such lesions are not widely available. A method is described that uses standard mammographic localization methods to place an MR compatible cerebral coil at the site of the suspect lesion. Confirmatory MRI can then be obtained before the lesion is surgically removed using a mammographic hook wire. This method is described and illustrated in detail for one case, and in summary for three further cases, to show the potential flexibility of application. The method is commended because it is simple and cheap, uses standard breast procedures and can be undertaken outside the MRI suite. The procedure will make full use of breast MRI possible to those who do not have dedicated localization equipment.

Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study. UK MRI Breast Screening Study Advisory Group

The imaging and analysis protocol of the UK multicentre study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a method of screening for breast cancer in women at genetic risk is described. The study will compare the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MRI with two-view x-ray mammography. Approximately 500 women below the age of 50 at high genetic risk of breast cancer will be recruited per year for three years, with annual MRI and x-ray mammography continuing for up to 5 years. A symptomatic cohort will be measured in the first year to ensure consistent reporting between centres. The MRI examination comprises a high-sensitivity three-dimensional contrast-enhanced assessment, followed by a high-specificity contrast-enhanced study in equivocal cases. Multiparametric analysis will encompass morphological assessment, the kinetics of contrast agent uptake and determination of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters. Retrospective analysis will identify the most specific indicators of malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity, together with diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact and therapeutic impact will be assessed with reference to pathology, follow-up and changes in diagnostic certainty and therapeutic decisions. Mammography, lesion localisation, pathology and cytology will be performed in accordance with the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme quality assurance standards. Similar standards of quality assurance will be applied for MR measurements and evaluation.

First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging

Women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer are often advised surveillance with physical examination twice a year and mammography once a year from 25 years onwards. However, the sensitivity of the mammography decreases when breast tissue is dense and this is seen in 40-50% of women under 50 years. We therefore investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to the normal surveillance could detect cancers otherwise missed. In 109 women with over 25% risk of breast cancer, MRI was performed because over 50% dense breast tissue was seen at mammography and no suspect lesion was seen at the previous screening. MRI detected breast cancers in three patients (2.8%) occult at mammography and with no new palpable tumor, twice at stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 once. Two cancers were expected. MRI was false positive in six women, resulting in two benign local excisions because ultrasound or fine needle examination confirmed suspicion. We had no false negative MRI results. MRI proved true benign in four BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers at histologic examination. Preoperative wire localization of the malignancies detected at MRI proved necessary as the tumor was not palpable in the lumpectomy specimen nor visible at specimen radiology. The extra cost of breast MRI in addition to mammography and physical examination was [symbol: see text]uro13.930 per detected cancer. The cost of the detection of one breast cancer patient in our national screening program is [symbol: see text]uro9000. During follow-up of patients with a familial risk in whom the first breast cancer was detected at MRI, MRI detected two recurrent cancers in stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 and one contralateral cancer T1aNo. Breast MRI is promising in screening young women at high risk for breast cancer, as it can advance the detection of cancers still occult at mammography and physical examination; but the cost may be considerable.