The Effect of Prior Comparison MRI on Interpretive Performance of Screening Breast MRI

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

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

Abbreviated Screening Breast MRI in Women at Higher-than-Average Risk for Breast Cancer with Prior Normal Full Protocol MRI

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of abbreviated screening breast MRI (ABMR) versus full protocol MRI (FPMR) in women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer with a prior normal FPMR.

METHODS

ABMR was performed on higher-than-average-risk women who had a prior normal FPMR. ABMR protocol consisted of short inversion time inversion recovery imaging, precontrast, and two early postcontrast sequences acquired in under 10 minutes. Retrospective review of ABMR examinations performed from July 2016 to July 2018 was compared with a control group who underwent routine screening with FPMR who had a prior normal FPMR performed from July 2014 to June 2016. Screening outcome metrics were calculated and compared, adjusting for differences in patient demographics.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 481 ABMR examinations, while the control group included 440 FPMR studies. There was no significant difference in the abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) or cancer detection rate (CDR) for the ABMR versus the FPMR group (AIR 6.0% vs 6.8% respectively, odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-1.5, P = 0.73; CDR 8.3 vs 11 cancers detected per 1000 examinations respectively, OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.20-2.7, P = 0.64). The PPV2 and PPV3 for the ABMR group was 19% and 21% versus 16% and 16% for the FPMR group, with no statistical difference. Sensitivity was 100% in each group with no interval cancers. There was no difference in specificity between the ABMR and FPMR groups, 93% versus 94%, respectively (P = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

ABMR may be used to screen higher-than-average-risk women with a prior normal FPMR as outcome metrics are equivalent to FPMR.