Breast Density: Where Are We Now?

Breast density refers to the amount of fibroglandular tissue relative to fat on mammography and is determined either qualitatively through visual assessment or quantitatively. It is a heritable and dynamic trait associated with age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and hormonal factors. Increased breast density has important clinical implications including the potential to mask malignancy and as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models. Given the impact of dense breasts on the interpretation of mammography, supplemental screening may be indicated.

Comparison of medical image interpretation time between conventional and automated methods of breast ultrasound

Objective

To compare the medical image interpretation's time between the conventional and automated methods of breast ultrasound in patients with breast lesions. Secondarily, to evaluate the agreement between the two methods and interobservers.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study with prospective data collection. The agreement's degrees were established in relation to the breast lesions's ultrasound descriptors. To determine the accuracy of each method, a biopsy of suspicious lesions was performed, considering the histopathological result as the diagnostic gold standard.

Results

We evaluated 27 women. Conventional ultrasound used an average medical time of 10.77 minutes (± 2.55) greater than the average of 7.38 minutes (± 2.06) for automated ultrasound (p<0.001). The degrees of agreement between the methods ranged from 0.75 to 0.95 for researcher 1 and from 0.71 to 0.98 for researcher 2. Among the researchers, the degrees of agreement were between 0.63 and 1 for automated ultrasound and between 0.68 and 1 for conventional ultrasound. The area of the ROC curve for the conventional method was 0.67 (p=0.003) for researcher 1 and 0.72 (p<0.001) for researcher 2. The area of the ROC curve for the automated method was 0. 69 (p=0.001) for researcher 1 and 0.78 (p<0.001) for researcher 2.

Conclusion

We observed less time devoted by the physician to automated ultrasound compared to conventional ultrasound, maintaining accuracy. There was substantial or strong to perfect interobserver agreement and substantial or strong to almost perfect agreement between the methods.

Magnetic Resonance Perfusion Imaging for Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women worldwide, carrying a significant socioeconomic burden. Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with 4 major subtypes identified. Each subtype has unique prognostic factors, risks, treatment responses, and survival rates. Advances in targeted therapies have considerably improved the 5-year survival rates for primary breast cancer patients largely due to widespread screening programs that enable early detection and timely treatment. Imaging techniques are indispensable in diagnosing and managing breast cancer. While mammography is the primary screening tool, MRI plays a significant role when mammography results are inconclusive or in patients with dense breast tissue. MRI has become standard in breast cancer imaging, providing detailed anatomic and functional data, including tumor perfusion and cellularity. A key characteristic of breast tumors is angiogenesis, a biological process that promotes tumor development and growth. Increased angiogenesis in tumors generally indicates poor prognosis and increased risk of metastasis. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI measures tumor perfusion and serves as an in vivo metric for angiogenesis. DCE-MRI has become the cornerstone of breast MRI, boasting a high negative-predictive value of 89% to 99%, although its specificity can vary. This review presents a thorough overview of magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion imaging in breast cancer, focusing on the role of DCE-MRI in clinical applications and exploring emerging MR perfusion imaging techniques.

Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Detection Software for Automated Breast Ultrasound

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiologists following the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection software (CAD) in detecting suspicious lesions in automated breast ultrasounds (ABUS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ABUS-detected 262 breast lesions (histopathological verification; January 2020 to December 2022) were included. Two radiologists reviewed the images and assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category. ABUS images were classified as positive or negative using AI-CAD. The BI-RADS category was readjusted in four ways: the radiologists modified the BI-RADS category using the AI results (AI-aided 1), upgraded or downgraded based on AI results (AI-aided 2), only upgraded for positive results (AI-aided 3), or only downgraded for negative results (AI-aided 4). The AI-aided diagnostic performances were compared to radiologists. The AI-CAD-positive and AI-CAD-negative cancer characteristics were compared.

RESULTS

For 262 lesions (145 malignant and 117 benign) in 231 women (mean age, 52.2 years), the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of radiologists was 0.870 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.832-0.908). The AUC significantly improved to 0.919 (95% CI, 0.890-0.947; P = 0.001) using AI-aided 1, whereas it improved without significance to 0.884 (95% CI, 0.844-0.923), 0.890 (95% CI, 0.852-0.929), and 0.890 (95% CI, 0.853-0.928) using AI-aided 2, 3, and 4, respectively. AI-CAD-negative cancers were smaller, less frequently exhibited retraction phenomenon, and had lower BI-RADS category. Among nonmass lesions, AI-CAD-negative cancers showed no posterior shadowing.

CONCLUSION

AI-CAD implementation significantly improved the radiologists' diagnostic performance and may serve as a valuable diagnostic tool.

Assessment of Oxygen Saturation in Breast Lesions Using Photoacoustic Imaging: Correlation With Benign and Malignant Disease

BACKGROUND

Hypoxia is a hallmark of breast cancer (BC). Photoacoustic (PA) imaging, based on the use of laser-generated ultrasound (US), can detect oxygen saturation (So2) in the tissues of breast lesion patients.

PURPOSE

To measure the oxygenation status of tissue in and on both sides of the lesion in breast lesion participants using a multimodal Photoacoustic/ultrasound (PA/US) imaging system and to determine the correlation between So2 measured by PA imaging and benign or malignant disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multimodal PA/US imaging and gray-scale US (GSUS) of breast lesion was performed in consecutive breast lesion participants imaged in the US Outpatient Clinic between 2022 and 2023. Dual-wavelength PA imaging was used to measure the So2 value inside the lesion and on both sides of the tissue, and to distinguish benign from malignant lesions based on the So2 value. The ability of So2 to distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and the De-Long test.

RESULTS

A total of 120 breast lesion participants (median age, 42.5 years) were included in the study. The malignant lesions exhibited lower So2 levels compared to benign lesions (malignant: 71.30%; benign: 83.81%; P < .01). Moreover, PA/US imaging demonstrates superior diagnostic results compared to GSUS, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 versus 0.70, sensitivity of 89.58% versus 85.42%, and specificity of 86.11% versus 55.56% at the So2 cut-off value of 78.85 (P < .001). The false positive rate in GSUS reduced by 30.75%, and the false negative rate diminished by 4.16% with PA /US diagnosis. Finally, the So2 on both sides tissues of malignant lesions are lower than that of benign lesions (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

PA imaging allows for the assessment of So2 within the lesions of breast lesion patients, thereby facilitating a superior distinction between benign and malignant lesions.

Automated Breast Ultrasound Provides Comparable Diagnostic Performance in Opportunistic Screening and Diagnostic Assessment

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the work described here was to assess the performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the screening and diagnostic setting.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study of women who underwent DBT and ABUS from December 2019 to March 2022 included opportunistic and targeted screening cases, as well as symptomatic women. Breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories and histopathology reports were collected and compared. The PPV3 (proportion of examinations with abnormal findings that resulted in a tissue diagnosis of cancer), biopsy rate (percentage of biopsies performed) and cancer detection yield (number of malignancies found by the diagnostic test given to the study sample) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 1089 ABUS examinations were performed (age range: 29-85 y, mean: 51.9 y). Among these were 909 screening (83.5%) and 180 diagnostic (16.5%) examinations. A total of 579 biopsies were performed on 407 patients, with a biopsy rate of 53.2%. There were 100 (9.2%) malignant lesions, 30 (5.2%) atypical/B3 lesions and 414 (71.5%) benign cases. In 9 cases (0.08%), ABUS alone detected malignancies, and in 19 cases (1.7%), DBT alone detected malignancies. The PPV3 in the screening group was 14.6%.

CONCLUSION

ABUS is useful as an adjunct to DBT in the opportunistic screening and diagnostic setting.

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.

Automated 3D Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography Programs in Dense Breast: Literature Review and Metanalysis

Purpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness of supplementing screening mammography with three-dimensional automated breast ultrasonography (3D ABUS) in improving breast cancer detection rates in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: We conducted a thorough review of scientific publications comparing 3D ABUS and mammography. Articles for inclusion were sourced from peer-reviewed journal databases, namely MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus, based on an initial screening of their titles and abstracts. To ensure a sufficient sample size for meaningful analysis, only studies evaluating a minimum of 20 patients were retained. Eligibility for evaluation was further limited to articles written in English. Additionally, selected studies were required to have participants aged 18 or above at the time of the study. We analyzed 25 studies published between 2000 and 2021, which included a total of 31,549 women with dense breasts. Among these women, 229 underwent mammography alone, while 347 underwent mammography in combination with 3D ABUS. The average age of the women was 50.86 years (±10 years standard deviation), with a range of 40-56 years. In our efforts to address and reduce bias, we applied a range of statistical analyses. These included assessing study variation through heterogeneity assessment, accounting for potential study variability using a random-effects model, exploring sources of bias via meta-regression analysis, and checking for publication bias through funnel plots and the Egger test. These methods ensured the reliability of our study findings. Results: According to the 25 studies included in this metanalysis, out of the total number of women, 27,495 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Of these, 211 were diagnosed through mammography alone, while an additional 329 women were diagnosed through the combination of full-field digital mammography (FFDSM) and 3D ABUS. This represents an increase of 51.5%. The rate of cancers detected per 1000 women screened was 23.25‱ (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.20, 25.60; p < 0.001) with mammography alone. In contrast, the addition of 3D ABUS to mammography increased the number of tumors detected to 20.95‱ (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.50, 23; p < 0.001) per 1000 women screened. Discussion: Even though variability in study results, lack of long-term outcomes, and selection bias may be present, this systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that supplementing mammography with 3D ABUS increases the accuracy of breast cancer detection in women with ACR3 to ACR4 breasts. Our findings suggest that the combination of mammography and 3D ABUS should be considered for screening women with dense breasts. Conclusions: Our research confirms that adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography-only screening in patients with dense breasts (ACR3 and ACR4) significantly (p < 0.05) increases the cancer detection rate.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation of Automated Breast US

Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. Patients with dense breast tissue are more likely to present with interval cancers and higher-stage disease. Successful breast cancer screening outcomes rely on detection of early-stage breast cancers; therefore, several supplemental screening modalities have been developed to improve cancer detection in dense breast tissue. US is the most widely used supplemental screening modality worldwide and has been proven to demonstrate additional mammographically occult cancers that are predominantly invasive and node negative. According to the American College of Radiology, intermediate-risk women with dense breast tissue may benefit from adjunctive screening US due to the limitations of mammography. Several studies have demonstrated handheld US (HHUS) and automated breast US (AUS) to be comparable in the screening setting. The advantages of AUS over HHUS include lack of operator dependence and a formal training requirement, image reproducibility, and ability for temporal comparison. However, AUS exhibits unique features that can result in high false-positive rates and long interpretation times for new users. Familiarity with the common appearance of benign mammographic findings and artifacts, technical challenges, and unique AUS features is essential for fast, efficient, and accurate interpretation. The goals of this article are to (a) examine the role of AUS as a supplemental screening modality and (b) review the pearls and pitfalls of AUS interpretation. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Best Practice Guideline - DEGUM Recommendations on Breast Ultrasound

Alongside mammography, breast ultrasound is an important and well-established method in assessment of breast lesions. With the "Best Practice Guideline", the DEGUM Breast Ultrasound (in German, "Mammasonografie") working group, intends to describe the additional and optional application modalities for the diagnostic confirmation of breast findings and to express DEGUM recommendations in this Part II, in addition to the current dignity criteria and assessment categories published in Part I, in order to facilitate the differential diagnosis of ambiguous lesions.The present "Best Practice Guideline" has set itself the goal of meeting the requirements for quality assurance and ensuring quality-controlled performance of breast ultrasound. The most important aspects of quality assurance are explained in this Part II of the Best Practice Guideline.

Breast Cancer in Dense Breasts: Detection Challenges and Supplemental Screening Opportunities

Dense breast tissue at mammography is associated with higher breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, which have prompted new considerations for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. The authors review the definition and classification of breast density, density assessment methods, breast cancer risk, current legislation, and future efforts and summarize trials and key studies that have affected the existing guidelines for supplemental screening. Cases of breast cancer in dense breasts are presented, highlighting a variety of modalities and specific imaging findings that can aid in cancer detection and staging. Understanding the current state of breast cancer screening in patients with dense breasts and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of breast cancer detection toward early diagnosis for women with dense breasts may be the answer to reducing the number of deaths from this common disease. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Yeh in this issue.

Integration of Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound among Women with Negative Mammographic Screening Findings: A Multi-center Population-based Study in China

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the role of second-look automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) adjunct to mammography (MAM) versus MAM alone in asymptomatic women and compared it with supplementing handheld ultrasound (HHUS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women aged 45 to 64 underwent HHUS, ABUS, and MAM among six hospitals in China from 2018 to 2022. We compared the screening performance of three strategies (MAM alone, MAM plus HHUS, and MAM plus ABUS) stratified by age groups and breast density. McNemar's test was used to assess differences in the cancer detection rate (CDR), the false-positive biopsy rate, sensitivity, and specificity of different strategies.

RESULTS

Of 19,171 women analyzed (mean [SD] age, 51.54 [4.61] years), 72 cases of breast cancer (3.76 per 1000) were detected. The detection rates for both HHUS and ABUS combined with MAM were statistically higher than those for MAM alone (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in cancer yields between the two integration strategies. The increase in CRD of the integrated strategies was higher in women aged 45-54 years with denser breasts compared with MAM alone (all p < 0.0167). In addition, the false-positive biopsy rate of MAM plus ABUS was lower than that of MAM plus HHUS (p = 0.025). Moreover, the retraction in ABUS was more frequent in cases detected among MAM-negative results.

CONCLUSION

Integrated ABUS or HHUS into MAM provided similar CDRs that were significantly higher than those for MAM alone in younger women (45-54 years) with denser breasts. ABUS has the potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies and provides specific image features to distinguish malignant tumors from HHUS.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Recommendations for the Screening of Breast Cancer of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Society of Mastology and Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Association

OBJECTIVE

 To present the update of the recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Society of Mastology and the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics for breast cancer screening in Brazil.

METHODS

 Scientific evidence published in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, CINAHL and Lilacs databases between January 2012 and July 2022 was searched. Recommendations were based on this evidence by consensus of the expert committee of the three entities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Annual mammography screening is recommended for women at usual risk aged 40-74 years. Above 75 years, it should be reserved for those with a life expectancy greater than seven years. Women at higher than usual risk, including those with dense breasts, with a personal history of atypical lobular hyperplasia, classic lobular carcinoma in situ, atypical ductal hyperplasia, treatment for breast cancer or chest irradiation before age 30, or even, carriers of a genetic mutation or with a strong family history, benefit from complementary screening, and should be considered individually. Tomosynthesis is a form of mammography and should be considered in screening whenever accessible and available.

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.

The Automation of Breast Ultrasonography and the Medical Time Dedicated to the Method

In this integrative review, we aimed to describe the records of time devoted by physicians to breast ultrasound in a review of articles in the literature, in order to observe whether the automation of the method enabled a reduction in these values. We selected articles from the Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS) and MEDLINE databases, through Virtual Health Library (BVS), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), PubMed, and Scopus. We obtained 561 articles, and, after excluding duplicates and screening procedures, 9 were selected, whose main information related to the guiding question of the research was synthesized and analyzed. It was concluded that the automation of breast ultrasound represents a possible strategy for optimization of the medical time dedicated to the method, but this needs to be better evaluated in comparative studies between both methods (traditional and automated), with methodology directed to the specific investigation of this potentiality.

Recommendations for breast cancer screening in Brazil, from the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Society of Mastology, and the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations

Objective

To present an update of the recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Society of Mastology, and the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations for breast cancer screening in Brazil.

Materials and Methods

Scientific evidence published between January 2012 and July 2022 was gathered from the following databases: Medline (PubMed); Excerpta Medica (Embase); Cochrane Library; Ebsco; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Cinahl); and Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (Lilacs). Recommendations were based on that evidence and were arrived at by consensus of a joint committee of experts from the three entities.Recommendations: Annual mammographic screening is recommended for women between 40 and 74 years of age. For women at or above the age of 75, screening should be reserved for those with a life expectancy greater than seven years. Women at higher than average risk are considered by category: those with dense breasts; those with a personal history of atypical lobular hyperplasia, classical lobular carcinoma in situ, or atypical ductal hyperplasia; those previously treated for breast cancer; those having undergone thoracic radiotherapy before age 30; and those with a relevant genetic mutation or a strong family history. The benefits of complementary screening are also addressed according to the subcategories above. The use of tomosynthesis, which is an evolved form of mammography, should be considered in screening, whenever accessible and available.

Expanding Horizons: The Realities of CAD, the Promise of Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning's Role in Breast Imaging beyond Screening Mammography

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in mammography have gained significant popular attention; however, AI has the potential to revolutionize other aspects of breast imaging beyond simple lesion detection. AI has the potential to enhance risk assessment by combining conventional factors with imaging and improve lesion detection through a comparison with prior studies and considerations of symmetry. It also holds promise in ultrasound analysis and automated whole breast ultrasound, areas marked by unique challenges. AI's potential utility also extends to administrative tasks such as MQSA compliance, scheduling, and protocoling, which can reduce the radiologists' workload. However, adoption in breast imaging faces limitations in terms of data quality and standardization, generalizability, benchmarking performance, and integration into clinical workflows. Developing methods for radiologists to interpret AI decisions, and understanding patient perspectives to build trust in AI results, will be key future endeavors, with the ultimate aim of fostering more efficient radiology practices and better patient care.

Imaging of breast cancer-beyond the basics

Imaging of breast cancer is the backbone of breast cancer screening, diagnosis, preoperative/treatment assessment and follow-up. The main modalities are mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. New emerging technologies have also enabled each modality to improve on their weaknesses. Imaging-guided biopsies have allowed for accurate diagnosis of breast cancer, with low complication rates. The purpose of this article is to review the common modalities for breast cancer imaging in current practice with emphasis on the strengths and potential weaknesses, discuss the selection of the best imaging modality for the specific clinical question or patient population, and explore new technologies / future directions of breast cancer imaging.

Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast US in Asian Women with Dense and Nondense Breasts

Background Automated breast (AB) US effectively depicts mammographically occult breast cancers in Western women. However, few studies have focused on the outcome of supplemental AB US in Asian women who have denser breasts than Western women. Purpose To evaluate the performance of supplemental AB US on mammography-based breast cancer screening in Asian women with dense breasts and those with nondense breasts. Materials and Methods A retrospective database search identified asymptomatic Korean women who underwent digital mammography (DM) and supplemental AB US screening for breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. We excluded women without sufficient follow-up, established final diagnosis, or histopathologic results. Performance measures of DM alone and AB US combined with DM (hereafter AB US plus DM) were compared. The primary outcome was cancer detection rate (CDR), and the secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were performed based on mammography density. Results From 2785 screening examinations in 2301 women (mean age, 52 years ± 9 [SD]), 28 cancers were diagnosed (26 screening-detected cancers, two interval cancers). When compared with DM alone, AB US plus DM resulted in a higher CDR of 9.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 7.7, 10.3) versus 6.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 5.2, 7.2; P < .001) and a higher sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI: 77.3, 100.0) versus 63.6% (95% CI: 40.9, 81.8; P < .001) but a lower specificity of 86.8% (95% CI: 85.2, 88.2) versus 94.6% (95% CI: 93.6, 95.5; P < .001) in women with dense breasts. In women with nondense breasts, AB US plus DM resulted in a higher CDR of 9.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 7.1, 10.6) versus 6.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.5, 7.1; P < .001), whereas specificity was lower at 95.2% (95% CI: 93.4, 96.8) versus 97.1% (95% CI: 95.8, 98.4; P < .001). Conclusion In Asian women, the addition of automated breast US to digital mammography showed higher cancer detection rates but lower specificities in both dense and nondense breasts. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis

Breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities by breast density and breast cancer risk has not been widely studied, and the optimal choice of modality for women with dense breasts remains unclear in clinical practice and guidelines. This systematic review aimed to assess breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities for women with dense breasts, by breast cancer risk. Systematic reviews (SRs) in 2000 to 2021, and primary studies in 2019 to 2021, on outcomes of supplemental screening modalities (digital breast tomography [DBT], MRI (full/abbreviated protocol), contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (hand-held [HHUS]/automated [ABUS]) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS C&D) were identified. None of the SRs analyzed outcomes by cancer risk. Meta-analysis of the primary studies was not feasible due to lack of studies (MRI, CEM, DBT) or methodological heterogeneity (ultrasound); therefore, findings were summarized narratively. For average risk, a single MRI trial reported a superior screening performance (higher cancer detection rate [CDR] and lower interval cancer rate [ICR]) compared to HHUS, ABUS and DBT. For intermediate risk, ultrasound was the only modality assessed, but accuracy estimates ranged widely. For mixed risk, a single CEM study reported the highest CDR, but included a high proportion of women with intermediate risk. This systematic review does not allow a complete comparison of supplemental screening modalities for dense breast populations by breast cancer risk. However, the data suggest that MRI and CEM might generally offer superior screening performance versus other modalities. Further studies of screening modalities are urgently required.

Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in Resource-Limited Settings: Current Practice and Future Directions

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women globally. Cancer screening can reduce mortality and improve women’s health. In developed countries, mammography (MAM) has been primarily utilized for population-based BC screening for several decades. However, it is usually unavailable in low-resource settings due to the lack of equipment, personnel, and time necessary to conduct and interpret the examinations. Ultrasound (US) with high detection sensitivity for women of younger ages and with dense breasts has become a supplement to MAM for breast examination. Some guidelines suggest using US as the primary screening tool in certain settings where MAM is unavailable and infeasible, but global recommendations have not yet reached a unanimous consensus. With the development of smart devices and artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging, clinical applications and preclinical studies have shown the potential of US combined with AI in BC screening. Nevertheless, there are few comprehensive reviews focused on the role of US in screening BC in underserved conditions, especially in technological, economical, and global perspectives. This work presents the benefits, limitations, advances, and future directions of BC screening with technology-assisted and resource-appropriate strategies, which may be helpful to implement screening initiatives in resource-limited countries.

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk

BACKGROUND

Screening mammography can detect breast cancer at an early stage. Supporters of adding ultrasonography to the screening regimen consider it a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce false-negative rates during screening. However, those opposed to it argue that performing supplemental ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography alone for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 3 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For efficacy and harms, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies enrolling at least 500 women at average risk for breast cancer between the ages of 40 and 75. We also included studies where 80% of the population met our age and breast cancer risk inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available event rates. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies: one RCT, two prospective cohort studies, and five retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 209,207 women with a follow-up duration from one to three years. The proportion of women with dense breasts ranged from 48% to 100%. Five studies used digital mammography; one study used breast tomosynthesis; and two studies used automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) in addition to mammography screening. One study used digital mammography alone or in combination with breast tomosynthesis and ABUS or handheld ultrasonography. Six of the eight studies evaluated the rate of cancer cases detected after one screening round, whilst two studies screened women once, twice, or more. None of the studies assessed whether mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography led to lower mortality from breast cancer or all-cause mortality. High certainty evidence from one trial showed that screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography detects more breast cancer than mammography alone. The J-START (Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomised Trial), enrolling 72,717 asymptomatic women, had a low risk of bias and found that two additional breast cancers per 1000 women were detected over two years with one additional ultrasonography than with mammography alone (5 versus 3 per 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.94). Low certainty evidence showed that the percentage of invasive tumours was similar, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (69.6% (128 of 184) versus 73.5% (86 of 117); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09). However, positive lymph node status was detected less frequently in women with invasive cancer who underwent mammography screening in combination with ultrasonography than in women who underwent mammography alone (18% (23 of 128) versus 34% (29 of 86); RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.86; moderate certainty evidence). Further, interval carcinomas occurred less frequently in the group screened by mammography and ultrasonography compared with mammography alone (5 versus 10 in 10,000 women; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89; 72,717 participants; high certainty evidence). False-negative results were less common when ultrasonography was used in addition to mammography than with mammography alone: 9% (18 of 202) versus 23% (35 of 152; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). However, the number of false-positive results and necessary biopsies were higher in the group with additional ultrasonography screening. Amongst 1000 women who do not have cancer, 37 more received a false-positive result when they participated in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography than with mammography alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.50; high certainty evidence). Compared to mammography alone, for every 1000 women participating in screening with a combination of mammography and ultrasonography, 27 more women will have a biopsy (RR 2.49, 95% CI 2.28 to 2.72; high certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies with methodological limitations confirmed these findings. A secondary analysis of the J-START provided results from 19,213 women with dense and non-dense breasts. In women with dense breasts, the combination of mammography and ultrasonography detected three more cancer cases (0 fewer to 7 more) per 1000 women screened than mammography alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.72; 11,390 participants; high certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of three cohort studies with data from 50,327 women with dense breasts supported this finding, showing that mammography and ultrasonography combined led to statistically significantly more diagnosed cancer cases compared to mammography alone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.56; 50,327 participants; moderate certainty evidence). For women with non-dense breasts, the secondary analysis of the J-START study demonstrated that more cancer cases were detected when adding ultrasound to mammography screening compared to mammography alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.68; 7823 participants; moderate certainty evidence), whilst two cohort studies with data from 40,636 women found no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.49; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on one study in women at average risk of breast cancer, ultrasonography in addition to mammography leads to more screening-detected breast cancer cases. For women with dense breasts, cohort studies more in line with real-life clinical practice confirmed this finding, whilst cohort studies for women with non-dense breasts showed no statistically significant difference between the two screening interventions. However, the number of false-positive results and biopsy rates were higher in women receiving additional ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. None of the included studies analysed whether the higher number of screen-detected cancers in the intervention group resulted in a lower mortality rate compared to mammography alone. Randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort studies with a longer observation period are needed to assess the effects of the two screening interventions on morbidity and mortality.

Diagnostic Performance of Prototype Handheld Ultrasound According to the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound Compared with Automated Breast Ultrasound among Females with Positive Lumps

(1) Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of prototype handheld ultrasound compared to automated breast ultrasound, according to the fifth edition of BI-RADS categorization, among females with positive lumps. (2) Methods: A total of 1004 lesions in 162 participants who underwent both prototype handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound were included. Two radiologists and a sonographer independently evaluated the sonographic features of each lesion according to the fifth BI-RADS edition. The kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated for each BI-RADS descriptor and final assessment category. The cross-tabulation was performed to see whether there were differences between the ABUS and prototype HHUS results. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated and compared using the McNamar test. (3) Results: ABUS and prototype HHUS observers found the same number of breast lesions in the 324 breasts of the 162 respondents. There was no significant difference in the mean lesion size, with a maximum mean length dimension of 0.48 ± 0.33 cm. The assessment of the lesion’s shape, orientation, margin, echo pattern, posterior acoustic features, and calcification was obtained with good to excellent agreements between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers (κ = 0.70–1.0). There was absolutely no significant difference between ABUS and prototype HHUS in assessment of lesion except for lesion orientation p = 0.00. Diagnostic accuracy (99.8% and 97.7–98.9%), sensitivity (99.5% and 98.0–99.0%), specificity (99.8% and 99.6–99.8%), positive predictive value (98.1% and 90.3–96.2%), negative predictive value (90.0% and 84.4–88.7%), and areas under the curve (0.98 and 0.83–0.92; p < 0.05) were not significantly different between ABUS and prototype HHUS observers. (4) Conclusion: According to the fifth BI-RADS edition, automated breast ultrasound is not statistically significantly different from prototype handheld ultrasound with regard to interobserver variability and diagnostic performance.

Recent Advances in Ultrasound Breast Imaging: From Industry to Clinical Practice

Breast ultrasound (US) has undergone dramatic technological improvement through recent decades, moving from a low spatial resolution, grayscale-limited technique to a highly performing, multiparametric modality. In this review, we first focus on the spectrum of technical tools that have become commercially available, including new microvasculature imaging modalities, high-frequency transducers, extended field-of-view scanning, elastography, contrast-enhanced US, MicroPure, 3D US, automated US, S-Detect, nomograms, images fusion, and virtual navigation. In the subsequent section, we discuss the broadened current application of US in breast clinical scenarios, distinguishing among primary US, complementary US, and second-look US. Finally, we mention the still ongoing limitations and the challenging aspects of breast US.

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Artificial Intelligence for Breast US

US is a widely available, commonly used, and indispensable imaging modality for breast evaluation. It is often the primary imaging modality for the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer in low-resource settings. In addition, it is frequently employed as a supplemental screening tool via either whole breast handheld US or automated breast US among women with dense breasts. In recent years, a variety of artificial intelligence systems have been developed to assist radiologists with the detection and diagnosis of breast lesions on US. This article reviews the background and evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence tools for breast US, describes implementation strategies and impact on clinical workflow, and discusses potential emerging roles and future directions.

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.

Breast cancer diagnosis using frequency decomposition of surface motion of actuated breast tissue

This paper presents a computationally simple diagnostic algorithm for breast cancer using a non-invasive Digital Image Elasto Tomography (DIET) system. N=14 women (28 breasts, 13 cancerous) underwent a clinical trial using the DIET system following mammography diagnosis. The screening involves steady state sinusoidal vibrations applied to the free hanging breast with cameras used to capture tissue motion. Image reconstruction methods provide surface displacement data for approximately 14,000 reference points on the breast surface. The breast surface was segmented into four radial and four vertical segments. Frequency decomposition of reference point motion in each segment were compared. Segments on the same vertical band were hypothesised to have similar frequency content in healthy breasts, with significant differences indicating a tumor, based on the stiffness dependence of frequency and tumors being 4~10 times stiffer than healthy tissue. Twelve breast configurations were used to test robustness of the method. Optimal breast configuration for the 26 breasts analysed (13 cancerous, 13 healthy) resulted in 85% sensitivity and 77% specificity. Combining two opposite configurations resulted in correct diagnosis of all cancerous breasts with 100% sensitivity and 69% specificity. Bootstrapping was used to fit a smooth receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve to compare breast configuration performance with optimal area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85. Diagnostic results show diagnostic accuracy is comparable or better than mammography, with the added benefits of DIET screening, including portability, non-invasive screening, and no breast compression, with potential to increase screening participation and equity, improving outcomes for women.

Breast dosimetry in alternative X-ray-based imaging modalities used in current clinical practices

In X-ray breast imaging, Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), are the standard and largely used techniques, both for diagnostic and screening purposes. Other techniques, such as dedicated Breast Computed Tomography (BCT) and Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) have been developed as an alternative or a complementary technique to the established ones. The performance of these imaging techniques is being continuously assessed to improve the image quality and to reduce the radiation dose. These imaging modalities are predominantly used in the diagnostic setting to resolve incomplete or indeterminate findings detected with conventional screening examinations and could potentially be used either as an adjunct or as a primary screening tool in select populations, such as for women with dense breasts. The aim of this review is to describe the radiation dosimetry for these imaging techniques, and to compare the mean glandular dose with standard breast imaging modalities, such as DM and DBT.

A Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Handheld Ultrasound Examination (HHUS) or Automated Ultrasound Examination (ABVS) in Women with Dense Breast

Mammography is the gold standard examination for breast cancer screening. In women with high breast density, mammography has reduced sensitivity. In these women, an additional screening option is often recommended. This study prospectively compared ABVS and HHUS in women with mammography-negative examinations and dense breasts. Materials and methods: N = 222 women were evaluated prospectively and consecutively between January 2019 and June 2019 (average age 53 years; range 39−89). McNemar’s test and ROC analysis were used with standard statistical software. We included in the study both symptomatic and asymptomatic women with dense breasts. Women included underwent both HHUS and ABVS after mammography with independent reading. Results: N = 33/222 (15%) women resulted in having breast cancer. Both ABVS and HHUS identified more cancers than standard mammography, and both HHUS and ABVS had false-positive examinations: n = 13 for HHUS and n = 12 for ABVS. We found that HHUS had better accuracy than ABVS. The AUC of the ROC was 0.788 (95% CI 0.687−0.890) for ABVS and 0.930 (95% CI 0.868−0.993) for HHUS. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions: HHUS was more accurate in breast cancer detection than ABVS. Multicentric studies must confirm these data for supplemental imaging in women with dense breasts.

Supine versus Prone 3D Abus Accuracy in Breast Tumor Size Evaluation

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with negative resection margins decreases the locoregional recurrence rate. Breast cancer size is one of the main determinants of Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging. Our study aimed to investigate the accuracy of supine 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D ABUS) compared to prone 3D ABUS in the evaluation of tumor size in breast cancer patient candidates for BCS. In this prospective two-center study (Groups 1 and 2), we enrolled patients with percutaneous biopsy-proven early-stage breast cancer, in the period between June 2019 and May 2020. Patients underwent hand-held ultrasound (HHUS), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) and 3D ABUS—supine 3D ABUS in Group 1 and prone 3D ABUS in Group 2. Histopathological examination (HE) was considered the reference standard. Bland–Altman analysis and plots were used. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Compared to prone, supine 3D ABUS showed better agreement with HE, with a slight tendency toward underestimation (mean difference of −2 mm). Supine 3D ABUS appears to be a useful tool and more accurate than HHUS in the staging of breast cancer.

Application of Convolution Neural Network Algorithm Based on Multicenter ABUS Images in Breast Lesion Detection

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate a convolution neural network algorithm for breast lesion detection with multi-center ABUS image data developed based on ABUS image and Yolo v5.

Methods

A total of 741 cases with 2,538 volume data of ABUS examinations were analyzed, which were recruited from 7 hospitals between October 2016 and December 2020. A total of 452 volume data of 413 cases were used as internal validation data, and 2,086 volume data from 328 cases were used as external validation data. There were 1,178 breast lesions in 413 patients (161 malignant and 1,017 benign) and 1,936 lesions in 328 patients (57 malignant and 1,879 benign). The efficiency and accuracy of the algorithm were analyzed in detecting lesions with different allowable false positive values and lesion sizes, and the differences were compared and analyzed, which included the various indicators in internal validation and external validation data.

Results

The study found that the algorithm had high sensitivity for all categories of lesions, even when using internal or external validation data. The overall detection rate of the algorithm was as high as 78.1 and 71.2% in the internal and external validation sets, respectively. The algorithm could detect more lesions with increasing nodule size (87.4% in ≥10 mm lesions but less than 50% in <10 mm). The detection rate of BI-RADS 4/5 lesions was higher than that of BI-RADS 3 or 2 (96.5% vs 79.7% vs 74.7% internal, 95.8% vs 74.7% vs 88.4% external). Furthermore, the detection performance was better for malignant nodules than benign (98.1% vs 74.9% internal, 98.2% vs 70.4% external).

Conclusions

This algorithm showed good detection efficiency in the internal and external validation sets, especially for category 4/5 lesions and malignant lesions. However, there are still some deficiencies in detecting category 2 and 3 lesions and lesions smaller than 10 mm.

Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.

The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening

The purpose of breast cancer screening is to find cancers early to reduce mortality and to allow successful treatment with less aggressive therapy. Mammography is the gold standard for breast cancer screening. Its efficacy in reducing mortality from breast cancer was proven in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from the early 1960s to the mid 1990s. Panels that recommend breast cancer screening guidelines have traditionally relied on the old RCTs, which did not include considerations of breast density, race/ethnicity, current hormone therapy, and other risk factors. Women do not all benefit equally from mammography. Mortality reduction is significantly lower in women with dense breasts because normal dense tissue can mask cancers on mammograms. Moreover, women with dense breasts are known to be at increased risk. To provide equity, breast cancer screening guidelines should be created with the goal of maximizing mortality reduction and allowing less aggressive therapy, which may include decreasing the interval between screening mammograms and recommending consideration of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. This review will address the issue of dense breasts and the impact on the stage of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis, and discuss options for supplemental screening.

Performance of novel deep learning network with the incorporation of the automatic segmentation network for diagnosis of breast cancer in automated breast ultrasound

OBJECTIVE

To develop novel deep learning network (DLN) with the incorporation of the automatic segmentation network (ASN) for morphological analysis and determined the performance for diagnosis breast cancer in automated breast ultrasound (ABUS).

METHODS

A total of 769 breast tumors were enrolled in this study and were randomly divided into training set and test set at 600 vs. 169. The novel DLNs (Resent v2, ResNet50 v2, ResNet101 v2) added a new ASN to the traditional ResNet networks and extracted morphological information of breast tumors. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and average precision (AP) were calculated. The diagnostic performances of novel DLNs were compared with those of two radiologists with different experience.

RESULTS

The ResNet34 v2 model had higher specificity (76.81%) and PPV (82.22%) than the other two, the ResNet50 v2 model had higher accuracy (78.11%) and NPV (72.86%), and the ResNet101 v2 model had higher sensitivity (85.00%). According to the AUCs and APs, the novel ResNet101 v2 model produced the best result (AUC 0.85 and AP 0.90) compared with the remaining five DLNs. Compared with the novice radiologist, the novel DLNs performed better. The F1 score was increased from 0.77 to 0.78, 0.81, and 0.82 by three novel DLNs. However, their diagnostic performance was worse than that of the experienced radiologist.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel DLNs performed better than traditional DLNs and may be helpful for novice radiologists to improve their diagnostic performance of breast cancer in ABUS.

KEY POINTS

• A novel automatic segmentation network to extract morphological information was successfully developed and implemented with ResNet deep learning networks. • The novel deep learning networks in our research performed better than the traditional deep learning networks in the diagnosis of breast cancer using ABUS images. • The novel deep learning networks in our research may be useful for novice radiologists to improve diagnostic performance.

Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in Chinese women

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in Chinese women, and its incidence is increasing. Regular screening is an effective method for early tumor detection and improving patient prognosis. In this review, we analyze the epidemiological changes and risk factors associated with breast cancer in China and describe the establishment of a screening strategy suitable for Chinese women. Chinese patients with breast cancer tend to be younger than Western patients and to have denser breasts. Therefore, the age of initial screening in Chinese women should be earlier, and the importance of screening with a combination of ultrasound and mammography is stressed. Moreover, Chinese patients with breast cancers have several ancestry-specific genetic features, and aiding in the determination of genetic screening strategies for identifying high-risk populations. On the basis of current studies, we summarize the development of risk-stratified breast cancer screening guidelines for Chinese women and describe the significant improvement in the prognosis of patients with breast cancer in China.

Improving Familial Hypercholesterolemia Diagnosis Using an EMR-based Hybrid Diagnostic Model

CONTEXT

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) confers a greatly increased risk for premature cardiovascular disease, but remains very underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care populations.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether using a hybrid model consisting of 2 existing FH diagnostic criteria coupled with electronic medical record (EMR) data would accurately identify patients with FH in a Midwest US metropolitan healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, records-based, cross-sectional study using datasets from unique EMRs of living patients. Using Structured Query Language to identify components of 2 currently approved FH diagnostic criteria, we created a hybrid model to identify individuals with FH.

RESULTS

Of 264 264 records analyzed, between 794 and 1571 patients were identified as having FH based on the hybrid diagnostic model, with a prevalence of 1:300 to 1:160. These patients had a higher prevalence of premature coronary artery disease (CAD) (38-58%) than the general population (1.8%) and higher than those having a high CAD risk but no FH (10%). Although most patients were receiving lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), only 50% were receiving guideline-recommended high-intensity LLT.

CONCLUSION

Using the hybrid model, we identified FH with a higher clinical and genetic detection rate than using standard diagnostic criteria individually. Statin and other LLT use were suboptimal and below guideline recommendations. Because FH underdiagnosis and undertreatment are due partially to the challenges of implementing existing diagnostic criteria in a primary care setting, this hybrid model potentially can improve FH diagnosis and subsequent early access to appropriate treatment.

Spatially tracked whole-breast three-dimensional ultrasound system toward point-of-care breast cancer screening in high-risk women with dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Mammographic screening has reduced mortality in women through the early detection of breast cancer. However, the sensitivity for breast cancer detection is significantly reduced in women with dense breasts, in addition to being an independent risk factor. Ultrasound (US) has been proven effective in detecting small, early-stage, and invasive cancers in women with dense breasts.

PURPOSE

To develop an alternative, versatile, and cost-effective spatially tracked three-dimensional (3D) US system for whole-breast imaging. This paper describes the design, development, and validation of the spatially tracked 3DUS system, including its components for spatial tracking, multi-image registration and fusion, feasibility for whole-breast 3DUS imaging and multi-planar visualization in tissue-mimicking phantoms, and a proof-of-concept healthy volunteer study.

METHODS

The spatially tracked 3DUS system contains (a) a six-axis manipulator and counterbalanced stabilizer, (b) an in-house quick-release 3DUS scanner, adaptable to any commercially available US system, and removable, allowing for handheld 3DUS acquisition and two-dimensional US imaging, and (c) custom software for 3D tracking, 3DUS reconstruction, visualization, and spatial-based multi-image registration and fusion of 3DUS images for whole-breast imaging. Spatial tracking of the 3D position and orientation of the system and its joints (J_1-6 ) were evaluated in a clinically accessible workspace for bedside point-of-care (POC) imaging. Multi-image registration and fusion of acquired 3DUS images were assessed with a quadrants-based protocol in tissue-mimicking phantoms and the target registration error (TRE) was quantified. Whole-breast 3DUS imaging and multi-planar visualization were evaluated with a tissue-mimicking breast phantom. Feasibility for spatially tracked whole-breast 3DUS imaging was assessed in a proof-of-concept healthy male and female volunteer study.

RESULTS

Mean tracking errors were 0.87 ± 0.52, 0.70 ± 0.46, 0.53 ± 0.48, 0.34 ± 0.32, 0.43 ± 0.28, and 0.78 ± 0.54 mm for joints J_1-6 , respectively. Lookup table (LUT) corrections minimized the error in joints J₁ , J₂ , and J₅ . Compound motions exercising all joints simultaneously resulted in a mean tracking error of 1.08 ± 0.88 mm (N = 20) within the overall workspace for bedside 3DUS imaging. Multi-image registration and fusion of two acquired 3DUS images resulted in a mean TRE of 1.28 ± 0.10 mm. Whole-breast 3DUS imaging and multi-planar visualization in axial, sagittal, and coronal views were demonstrated with the tissue-mimicking breast phantom. The feasibility of the whole-breast 3DUS approach was demonstrated in healthy male and female volunteers. In the male volunteer, the high-resolution whole-breast 3DUS acquisition protocol was optimized without the added complexities of curvature and tissue deformations. With small post-acquisition corrections for motion, whole-breast 3DUS imaging was performed on the healthy female volunteer showing relevant anatomical structures and details.

CONCLUSIONS

Our spatially tracked 3DUS system shows potential utility as an alternative, accurate, and feasible whole-breast approach with the capability for bedside POC imaging. Future work is focused on reducing misregistration errors due to motion and tissue deformations, to develop a robust spatially tracked whole-breast 3DUS acquisition protocol, then exploring its clinical utility for screening high-risk women with dense breasts.

Different Types of Ultrasound Probes Usage for Multi-Angle Conventional 3D Ultrasound Compound Imaging: A Breast Phantom Study

Three-dimensional automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) systems seem to offer excellent results in breast cancer screening tests and its early detection, comparable to handheld ultrasound B-mode scanning, with the benefit of saving physician time and reducing handheld ultrasound issues. Nevertheless, the ABUS systems are not very popular, due to the cost and very narrow application. The multi-angle conventional 3D ultrasound compound imaging method (MACUI) is intended for use with standard B-mode scanners in order to reduce cost but preserve the advantages of ABUS systems. The rotational probe movement is utilized in order to collect images for the three-dimensional reconstruction of the scanned tissue’s anatomy. The authors evaluate the capabilities to increase the scanned volume and quality of reconstructions, which are limited in current MACUI implementations, with a probe tilt and shift. The study shows and discusses the results of the imaging using different probes available for SmartUs Telemed B-Mode scanner at different scanning geometry in order to determine the capabilities of such an ultrasound imaging system. The results discussed in the paper highlight the benefits in quality improvement and scanning area obtained with tilted and shifted probes, as well as the advantages of using a relatively simple convex probe that does not incorporate software beam steering over more advanced devices.

Quantitative Sound Speed Imaging of Cortical Bone and Soft Tissue: Results From Observational Data Sets

This work presents the first quantitative ultrasonic sound speed images of ex vivo limb cross-sections containing both soft tissue and bone using Full Waveform Inversion (FWI) with level set (LS) and travel time regularization. The estimated bulk sound speed of bone and soft tissue are within 10% and 1%, respectively, of ground truth estimates. The sound speed imagery shows muscle, connective tissue and bone features. Typically, ultrasound tomography (UST) using FWI is applied to imaging breast tissue properties (e.g. sound speed and density) that correlate with cancer. With further development, UST systems have the potential to deliver volumetric operator independent tissue property images of limbs with non-ionizing and portable hardware platforms. This work addresses the algorithmic challenges of imaging the sound speed of bone and soft tissue by combining FWI with LS regularization and travel time methods to recover soft tissue and bone sound speed with improved accuracy and reduced soft tissue artifacts when compared to conventional FWI. The value of leveraging LS and travel time methods is realized by evidence of improved bone geometry estimates as well as promising convergence properties and reduced risk of final model errors due to un-modeled shear wave propagation. Ex vivo bulk measurements of sound speed and MRI cross-sections validates the final inversion results.

Evaluation of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) in Screening Automated Breast Ultrasound Based on Characteristics of CAD Marks and False-Positive Marks

The present study evaluated the effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CAD) system in screening automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and analyzed the characteristics of CAD marks and the causes of false-positive marks. A total of 846 women who underwent ABUS for screening from January 2017 to December 2017 were included. Commercial CAD was used in all ABUS examinations, and its diagnostic performance and efficacy in shortening the reading time (RT) were evaluated. In addition, we analyzed the characteristics of CAD marks and the causes of false-positive marks. A total of 1032 CAD marks were displayed based on the patient and 534 CAD marks on the lesion. Five cases of breast cancer were diagnosed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CAD were 60.0%, 59.0%, 0.9%, and 99.6% for 846 patients. In the case of a negative study, it was less time-consuming and easier to make a decision. Among 530 false-positive marks, 459 were identified clearly for pseudo-lesions; the most common cause was marginal shadowing, followed by Cooper’s ligament shadowing, peri-areolar shadowing, rib, and skin lesions. Even though CAD does not improve the performance of ABUS and a large number of false-positive marks were detected, the addition of CAD reduces RT, especially in the case of negative screening ultrasound.

Associating Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) in Clinical Practice in Cases of Women with Dense Breast Tissue

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the value of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared to FFDM associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods: This retrospective study included 50 female patients with a denser framework of connective tissue fibers, characteristic of young women who underwent FFDM, DBT, handheld ultrasound (HHUS), and ABUS between January 2017 and October 2018. The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of FFDM+ABUS were 81.82% (95% CI [48.22–97.72]), 89.74% (95% CI [75.78–97.13]), 69.23% (95% CI [46.05–85.57]), 94.59% (95% CI [83.26–98.40]), and 88% (95% CI [75.69–95.47]), while for FFDM+DBT, the values were as follows: 91.67% (95% CI [61.52–99.79]), 71.79% (95% CI [55.13–85.00]), 50% (95% CI [37.08–62.92]), 96.55% (95% CI [80.93–99.46]), 76.47% (95% CI [62.51–87.21]). We found an almost perfect agreement between the two readers regarding FFDM associated with ABUS, and substantial agreement regarding FFDM+DBT, with a kappa coefficient of 0.896 and 0.8, respectively; p < 0.001. Conclusions: ABUS and DBT are suitable as additional diagnostic imaging techniques to FFDM in women at an intermediate risk of developing breast cancer through the presence of dense breast tissue. In this study, DBT reduced the number of false negative results, while the use of ABUS resulted in an increase in specificity.

Comparison of 3D-Automated Breast Ultrasound With Handheld Breast Ultrasound Regarding Detection and BI-RADS Characterization of Lesions in Dense Breasts: A Study of 592 Cases

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of an automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in the detection and characterization of lesions regarding BI-RADS classification in women with dense breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After ethical approval, from July 2017 to August 2019, 592 consecutive patients were enrolled in this prospective study. On the same day, patients underwent ABUS followed by HHUS. Three breast radiologists participated in this study. The number and type of lesions and BI-RADS categorization of both ABUS and HHUS examinations of each patient were recorded in an excel file. The level of agreement between the two ultrasound systems in terms of lesion number and BI-RADS category were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

ABUS and HHUS detected 1005 and 1491 cystic and 270 and 336 mass lesions in 592 patients respectively. ABUS and HHUS detected 171 and 167 positive/suspicious cases (BIRADS 0/3/4/5). Forty suspicious lesions underwent core needle biopsy whereas 11 malignant lesions were detected by both methods. The remaining lesions were followed with a mean of 31 months. The mean size of solid lesions detected by HHUS and ABUS was 7.67 mm (range 2.1-41 mm) and 7.74 mm (range 2-42 mm) respectively. The agreement for detection of cystic lesions between two methods for each breast was good (kappa: 0.61-0.62 p < 0.001). The agreement of two methods for solid mass lesions for each breast was moderate (k = 0.57-0.60 p < 0.001). There was good agreement between the two methods for detecting suspicious lesions (kappa = 0.66 p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The level of agreement of ABUS and HHUS for dichotomic assignment of BIRADS categories was good. Although ABUS detected fewer lesions compared to HHUS, both methods detected all malignant lesions. ABUS is a reliable method for the detection of malignancy in dense breasts.

Dependability of Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) in Assessing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Category and Size of Malignant Breast Lesions Compared with Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) and Mammography (MG)

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the dependability of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG) on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category and size assessment of malignant breast lesions.

Patients and Methods

A total of 344 confirmed malignant lesions were recruited. All participants underwent MG, HHUS, and ABUS examinations. Agreements on the BI-RADS category were evaluated. Lesion size assessed using the three methods was compared with the size of the pathological result as the control. Regarding the four major molecular subtypes, correlation coefficients between size on imaging and pathology were also evaluated.

Results

The agreement between ABUS and HHUS on the BI-RADS category was 86.63% (kappa = 0.77), whereas it was 32.22% (kappa = 0.10) between ABUS and MG. Imaging lesion size compared to pathologic lesion size was assessed correctly in 36.92%/52.91% (ABUS), 33.14%/48.84% (HHUS) and 33.44%/43.87% (MG), with the threshold of 3 mm/5 mm, respectively. The correlation coefficient of size of ABUS-Pathology (0.75, Spearman) was statistically higher than that of the MG-Pathology (0.58, Spearman) with P < 0.01, but not different from that of the HHUS-Pathology (0.74, Spearman) with P > 0.05. The correlation coefficient of ABUS-Pathology was statistically higher than that of MG-Pathology in the triple-negative subtype, luminal B subtype, and luminal A subtype (P<0.01).

Conclusion

The agreement between ABUS and HHUS in the BI-RADS category was good, whereas that between ABUS and MG was poor. ABUS and HHUS allowed a more accurate assessment of malignant tumor size compared to MG.

Does automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) add to breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in assessment of lesions in dense breasts?

Background

As mammography has its known limitations in dense breast, additional imaging is usually needed. We aimed to evaluate the role of automated breast ultrasound in addition to tomosynthesis in detection and diagnosis of breast lesions in dense breasts. Seventy patients with dense breasts subjected to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Both studies were evaluated by two experienced radiologists to assess breast composition, mass characterization, asymmetry, calcification, axillary lymphadenopathy, extent of disease (EOD), skin thickening, retraction, architectural distortion, and BIRADS classification. All breast masses were interpreted as above described and then correlated with final pathological diagnosis.

Results

Study included 70 females presenting with different types of breast lesions. Eighty-two masses were detected: 53 benign (n = 53/82), 29 malignant (n = 29/82). Histopathology of the masses was reached by core biopsy (n = 30), FNAC (n = 14), and excisional biopsy (n = 11). The rest of the masses (n = 27/82) were confirmed by their characteristic sonographic appearances; 20 cases of multiple bilateral anechoic simple cysts, 7 typical fibroadenomas showed stationary course on follow-up. As regards the final BIRADS score given for both modalities, tomosynthesis showed accuracy of 93.1% in characterization of malignant masses with accuracy of 94.3% in benign masses, on the other hand automated ultrasound showed 100% accuracy in characterization of malignant masses with 98.1% accuracy in benign masses.

Conclusion

Adding ABUS to tomosynthesis has proven a valuable imaging tool for characterization of breast lesions in dense breasts both as screening and diagnostic tool. They proved to be more sensitive and specific than digital mammography alone in showing tissue overlap, tumor characterization, lesion margins, extent, and multiplicity of malignant lesions.

Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive exam for detecting breast cancer. The American College of Radiology recommends women with 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing breast cancer be screened annually with MRI. However, other high-risk populations would also benefit. Hartmann et al. reported women with atypical hyperplasia have nearly a 30% incidence of breast cancer at 25-year follow-up. Women with dense breast tissue have up to a 4-fold increased risk of breast cancer when compared to average-risk women; their cancers are more likely to be mammographically occult. Because multiple cohorts of women are at high risk for developing breast cancer, there has been a movement to develop an abbreviated MRI (abMRI) protocol to expand the availability of MRI screening. Studies on abMRI effectiveness have been promising, with Weinstein et al. demonstrating a cancer detection rate of 27.4/1000 in women with dense breasts after a negative digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast MRI is also used to evaluate the extent of disease as part of preoperative assessment in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to assess a patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper aims to explore the current uses of MRI and propose future indications and directions.