Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a repeated false positive recall

We determined the re-attendance rate at screening mammography after a single or a repeated false positive recall and we assessed the effects of transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic abnormality. The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 302,912 SFM and 90,288 FFDM screens. During a 2 years follow-up period (until the next biennial screen), we collected the breast imaging reports and biopsy results of all recalled women. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography was 93.2 % (95 % CI 93.1–93.3 %) for women with a negative screen (i.e., no recall at screening mammography), 65.4 % (95 % CI 64.0–66.8 %) for women recalled once, 56.7 % (95 % CI 47.1–66.4 %) for women recalled twice but for different lesions and 44.3 % (95 % CI 31.4–57.1 %) for women recalled twice for the same lesion. FFDM recalls comprised a significantly larger proportion of women who had been recalled twice for the same lesion (1.9 % of recalls (52 women) at FFDM vs. 0.9 % of recalls (37 women) at SFM, P < 0.001) and the positive predictive value of these recalls (PPV) was significantly lower at FFDM (15.4 vs. 35.1 %, P = 0.03). At review, 20 of 52 women (39.5 %, all with benign outcome) would not have been recalled for a second time at FFDM if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison. We conclude that a repeated false positive recall for the same lesion significantly lowered the probability of screening re-attendance. The first round of FFDM significantly increased the proportion of women recalled twice for the same lesion, with a significantly lower PPV of these lesions. Almost 40 % of repeatedly recalled women would not have been recalled the second time if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison at the time of FFDM.     

Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment – A population based study from the Netherlands

IntroductionIn most breast screening programmes screen-film mammography (SFM) has been replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM). We compared interval cancer characteristics at SFM and FFDM screening mammography.Patients and methodsWe included all 297 screen-detected and 104 interval cancers in 60,770 SFM examinations and 427 screen-detected and 124 interval cancers in 63,182 FFDM examinations, in women screened in the period 2008–2010. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all cancers were collected. Two radiologists reviewed prior and diagnostic mammograms of all interval cancers. They determined breast density, described mammographic abnormalities and classified interval cancers as missed, showing a minimal sign abnormality or true negative.ResultsThe referral rate and cancer detection at SFM were 1.5% and 4.9‰ respectively, compared to 3.0% (p < 0.001) and 6.6‰ (p < 0.001) at FFDM. Screening sensitivity was 74.1% at SFM (297/401, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 69.8–78.4%) and 77.5% at FFDM (427/551, 95% CI = 74.0–81.0%). Significantly more interval cancers were true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography (65.3% (81/124) versus 47.1% (49/104), p = 0.02). For interval cancers following SFM or FFDM screening mammography, no significant differences were observed in breast density or mammographic abnormalities at the prior screen, tumour size, lymph node status, receptor status, Nottingham tumour grade or surgical treatment (mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy).ConclusionFFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate, but sensitivity was similar for SFM and FFDM. Interval cancers are more likely to be true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography, whereas their tumour characteristics and type of surgical treatment are comparable.     

Screening outcome and surgical treatment during and after the transition from screen‐film to digital screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands

We determined screening outcome of subsequent screens during and after the transition from screen‐film mammography (SFM) to full‐field digital mammography (FFDM). A consecutive series of 102,863 subsequent (SFM screens with a prior SFM screen (SFM‐SFM cohort), 91,941 FFDM screens with a prior SFM screen (FFDM‐SFM cohort) and 90,407 FFDM screens with a prior FFDM screen (FFDM‐FFDM cohort) were obtained between January 2006 and July 2013. The referral rate and cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1,000 screens were higher at FFDM‐SFM than at SFM–SFM (2.7% vs. 1.2% (p < 0.001) and 7.0 vs. 4.9, p < 0.001), at the expense of a lower positive predictive value (PPV) of referral (25.8% vs. 39.6%, p < 0.001). These parameters were comparable for FFDM‐SFM and FFDM–FFDM. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive cancer rates increased during transition and remained stable after transition. The rate of DCIS of intermediate grade increased during the transition from 0.2 per 1,000 screened women at SFM‐SFM to 0.6 at FFDM‐SFM (p < 0.001) and 0.5 at FFDM‐FFDM (p = 0.001). Compared to SFM‐SFM, a significantly higher rate of invasive cancers were stage T1a‐b at FFDM‐SFM (p < 0.001) and FFDM‐FFDM (p < 0.001). Breast conserving surgery rates increased during transition (p < 0.001) and remained stable afterwards. The CDR and referral rate remained significantly higher at FFDM than at SFM, at the expense of a decreased PPV of referral. During transition, DCIS was more often of intermediate grade and invasive cancers were of smaller size.     

Comparison of synthetic mammography,reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis,and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories

Purpose

To compare the interpretive performance of synthetic mammography (SM), reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic setting, covering different conditions of breast density and mammographic signs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 patients, who underwent FFDM and DBT (from which SM images were reconstructed) between September 2014–September 2015. The study included 250 suspicious breast lesions, all biopsy proven: 148 (59.2%) malignant and 13 (5.2%) high-risk lesions were confirmed by surgery, 89 (35.6%) benign lesions had radiological follow-up. Two breast radiologists, blinded to histology, independently reviewed all cases. Readings were performed with SM alone, then with FFDM, collecting data on: probability of malignancy for each finding, lesion conspicuity, mammographic features and dimensions of detected lesions.

Results

Agreement between readers was good for BI-RADS classification (Cohen’s k-coefficient = 0.93 ± 0.02) and for lesion dimension (Wilcoxon’s p = 0.76). Visibility scores assigned to SM and FFDM for each lesion were similar for non-dense and dense breasts, however, there were significant differences (p = 0.0009) in distribution of mammographic features subgroups. SM and FFDM had similar sensitivities in non-dense (respectively 94 vs. 91%) and dense breasts (88 vs. 80%) and for all mammographic signs (93 vs. 87% for asymmetric densities, 96 vs. 75% for distortion, 92 vs. 85% for microcalcifications, and both 94% for masses). Based on all data, there was a significant difference in sensitivity for SM (92%) vs. FFDM (87%), p = 0.02, whereas the two modalities yielded similar results for specificity (SM: 60%, FFDM: 62%, p = 0.21).

Conclusions

SM alone showed similar interpretive performance to FFDM, confirming its potential role as an alternative to FFDM in women having tomosynthesis, with the added advantage of halving the patient’s dose exposure.

     

Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study

BackgroundFull-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast screening programs. We analyzed the impact of this replacement on the screening outcome.Patients and methodsThe study population consisted of a consecutive series of 60 770 analog and 63 182 digital screens. During a 1-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all the referred women.ResultsThe referral rate and the cancer detection rate at FFDM were, respectively, 3.0% and 6,6‰, compared with 1.5% (P < 0.001) and 4.9‰ (P < 0.001) at SFM. Positive predictive values of referral and percutaneous biopsies were lower at FFDM, respectively, 21.9% versus 31.6% (P < 0.001) and 42.9% versus 62.8% (P < 0.001). Per 1000 screened women, there was a significant increase with FFDM versus SFM in the detection rate of low- and intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (+0.7), invasive T1a-c cancers (+0.9), invasive ductal cancers (+0.9), low-grade (+1.1), node-negative invasive cancers (+1.2), estrogen-receptor or progesterone-receptor-positive invasive cancers (respectively, +0.9 and +1.1) and Her2/Neu-negative (+0.8) invasive cancers. Mastectomy rates were stable at 1.1 per 1,000 screens.ConclusionsFFDM significantly increased the referral rate and cancer detection rate, at the expense of a lower positive predictive value of referral and biopsy. Extra tumors detected at FFDM were mostly low-intermediate grade DCIS and smaller invasive tumors, of more favorable tumor characteristics. Mastectomy rates were not increased in the FFDM population, while increased over-diagnosis cannot be excluded.     

Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice

Background

Most published studies evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) included a separate 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for DBT screening protocols, increasing radiation from screening mammography. Synthesized mammography (SM) creates a 2-dimensional image from the DBT source data, and if used in place of FFDM, it reduces radiation of DBT screening. This study evaluated the implementation of SM + DBT in routine screening practice in terms of recall rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), % of minimal cancers, % of node-positive cancers, and positive predictive values (PPV).

Materials and methods

A multivariate retrospective institutional analysis was performed on 31,979 women who obtained screening mammography (10/2013–12/2015) with cohorts divided by modality (SM + DBT, FFDM + DBT, and FFDM). We adjusted for comparison mammograms, age, breast density, and the interpreting radiologist. Recall type was analyzed for differences (focal asymmetry, asymmetry, masses, calcifications, architectural distortion).

Results

SM + DBT significantly decreased the recall rate compared to FFDM (5.52 vs. 7.83%, p < 0.001) with no differences in overall CDR (p = 0.66), invasive and/or in situ CDR, or percentages of minimal and node-negative cancers. PPV1 significantly increased with SM + DBT relative to FFDM (9.1 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.02). SM + DBT did not differ significantly in recall rate or overall CDR compared to FFDM + DBT. There were statistically significant differences in certain findings recalled by screening modality (e.g., focal asymmetries).

Conclusions

SM + DBT reduces false positives compared to FFDM, while maintaining the CDR and other desirable audit outcome data. SM + DBT is more accurate than FFDM alone, and is a desirable alternative to FFDM + DBT, given the added benefit of radiation reduction.

     

Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers

Overdiagnosis of breast cancer, i.e. the detection of slow-growing tumors that would never have caused symptoms or death, became more prevalent with the implementation of population-based screening. Only rough estimates have been made of the proportion of patients that are overdiagnosed and identification of those patients is difficult. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether tumor biology can help identify patients with screen-detected tumors at such a low risk of recurrence that they are likely to be overdiagnosed. Furthermore, we wish to evaluate the impact of the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to the more sensitive full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the biology of the tumors detected by each screening-modality. All Dutch breast cancer patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial (EORTC-10041) accrued 2007–2011, who participated in the national screening program (biennial screening ages 50–75) were included (n = 1,165). We calculated the proportions of high-, low- and among those the ultralow-risk tumors according to the 70-gene signature for patients with screen-detected (n = 775) and interval (n = 390) cancers for FSM and FFDM. Screen-detected cancers had significantly more often a low-risk tumor biology (68 %) of which 54 % even an ultralow-risk compared to interval cancers (53 % low-, of which 45 % ultralow-risk (p = 0.001) with an OR of 2.33 (p < 0.0001; 95 % CI 1.73–3.15). FFDM detected significantly more high-risk tumors (35 %) compared to FSM (27 %) (p = 0.011). Aside from favorable clinico-pathological factors, screen-detected cancers were also more likely to have a biologically low-risk or even ultralow-risk tumor. Especially for patients with screen-detected cancers the use of tools, such as the 70-gene signature, to differentiate breast cancers by risk of recurrence may minimize overtreatment. The recent transition in screening-modalities led to an increase in the detection of biologically high-risk cancers using FFDM.     

Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging

Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35–67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r ² = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.     

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

Purpose

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening.

Methods

Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50–69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds.

Results

24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers.

Conclusions

DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

     

A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers

Purpose

To evaluate interobserver agreement in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization, and to evaluate the cancer detection rate of standard two-view FFDM compared to various combinations of DBT.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five women (mean age 59.7; range 50–80 years) with 37 breast cancers who underwent both two-view DBT and two-view FFDM were included. DBT images were obtained using an investigational prototype. We performed interobserver agreement analyses using kappa (k) statistics. The cancer detection rate of various combinations of DBT compared to standard two-view FFDM was estimated using a generalized estimation equation.

Results

There was fair to moderate agreement on detectability (k = 0.59–0.62) in both views of FFDM and DBT, while fair to substantial agreement was found for lesion location (k = 0.52–0.84) and fair to moderate agreement for lesion type (k = 0.46–0.70) and BI-RADS final assessment (k = 0.48–0.69). In generalized estimation equations, standard two-view FFDM was inferior to any combination of DBT. The detection rate ratio was significantly higher in the combined four views of DBT and FFDM compared to standard FFDM (p < 0.046).

Conclusion

Our study showed good agreement in lesion detection and characterization between FFDM and DBT images. Our findings also demonstrated that combining DBT and FFDM is superior in detecting cancer compared to standard FFDM.

     

Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction

Background

The main barrier to adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is radiation exposure dose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of DBT plus FFDM, both with newly developed technology (nd), at a dose comparable to that of the conventional FFDM alone.

Methods

Nine hundred and thirteen participants were recruited from May 2014 to January 2016 consecutively. For each subject, the exposure setting for DBT(nd) + FFDM(nd) was also used for the conventional FFDM alone. Retrospective reader studies were performed: DBT(nd) + FFDM(nd) (142 cases, including 42 cancer cases) and conventional FFDM (258 cases, including 87 cancer cases). Eight radiologists provided Japanese categorizations and probability of malignancy independently. Diagnostic performance was assessed by comparing sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Two-sided P values were calculated.

Results

DBT(nd) + FFDM(nd) showed sensitivity and AUC significantly increased over the conventional FFDM (85.4 vs. 80.3%, P = 0.015 and 90.9 vs. 88.3%, P = 0.049) and specificity did not significantly increase (89.6 vs. 88.4%, P = 0.52). The mean glandular dose (MGD) difference of DBT(nd) + FFDM(nd) and conventional FFDM was not significant (difference ? 0.11 mGy, P = 0.08).

Conclusions

In this study population, DBT plus FFDM, both with newly developed technology, provided diagnostic performance improved over the conventional FFDM alone, even at comparable MGD.

     

Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

Background

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequently diagnosed breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 15% of all invasive breast cancers, yet it remains radiologically elusive in many cases. The goal of this study was to compare the ability to accurately assess disease extent with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven ILC.

Should we screen BRCA1 mutation carriers only with MRI? A multicenter study

BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with MRI and mammography. Aim of the study was to investigate the additional value of digital mammography over MRI screening. BRCA1 mutation carriers, who developed breast cancer since the introduction of digital mammography between January 2003 and March 2013, were included. The images and reports were reviewed in order to assess whether the breast cancers were screen-detected or interval cancers and whether they were visible on mammography and MRI, using the breast imaging and data system classification allocated at the time of diagnosis. In 93 BRCA1 mutation carriers who underwent screening with MRI and mammography, 82 invasive breast cancers and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) were found. Screening sensitivity was 95.7 % (90/94). MRI detected 88 of 94 breast cancers (sensitivity 93.6 %), and mammography detected 48 breast cancers (sensitivity 51.1 %) (two-sided p < 0.001). Forty-two malignancies were detected only by MRI (42/94 = 44.7 %). Two DCIS were detected only with mammography (2/94 = 2.1 %) concerning a grade 3 in a 50-year-old patient and a grade 2 in a 67-year-old patient. Four interval cancers occurred (4/94 = 4.3 %), all grade 3 triple negative invasive ductal carcinomas. In conclusion, digital mammography added only 2 % to the breast cancer detection in BRCA1 patients. There was no benefit of additional mammography in women below age 40. Given the potential risk of radiation-induced breast cancer in young mutation carriers, we propose to screen BRCA1 mutation carriers yearly with MRI from age 25 onwards and to start with mammographic screening not earlier than age 40.     

Detectability comparison of modes in dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis

Background

The objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate the detectability of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and compare it with that of FFDM alone and (2) to compare the detectability of high-resolution-mode (HR mode used with 40°-angle imaging, 100-µm pixel size, and higher dose) DBT with that of standard-mode (ST mode used with 15°-angle imaging, 150-µm pixel size, and lower dose) DBT for diagnostic evaluation.

Materials

The local Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study of two different sets of cases. All participants gave written informed consent. FFDM and DBT images of 471 women who were recalled were acquired between August 2013 and October 2014. HR mode and ST mode were applied to 155 breasts and 157 breasts, respectively. The cases of both modes were selected randomly. Eight radiologists interpreted the images. The detectability for recall cases and for follow cases, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated.

Results

Adding DBT to FFDM significantly increased the detectability for recall cases and AUC relative to those of FFDM alone (HR mode 8.9 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.7, 15.0 %; P = 0.013 and 4.9 %; 95 % CI 2.1, 7.7 %; P = 0.001; ST mode 8.3 %; 95 % CI 4.1, 12.1 %; P = 0.007 and 2.9 %; 95 % CI 0.5, 5.3 %; P = 0.02), whereas the detectability for follow cases did not significantly differ. The AUC increase was significantly higher in HR mode than in ST mode (1.5 %; 95 % CI 0.5, 3.7 %; P = 0.023).

Conclusion

Adding HR-mode or ST-mode DBT to FFDM significantly improved the detectability for diagnostic evaluation case.

     

Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ

Background

The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains uncertain. The risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected DCIS are unclear.

Can additional immunohistochemistry staining replace the surgical excision for the diagnosis of papillary breast lesions classified as benign on 14-gage core needle biopsy?

To evaluate whether the upgrade-to-malignancy rate of benign papillary lesions on ultrasonographically (US)-guided 14-gage core needle biopsy (CNB) can be decreased using immunohistochemistry staining (IHC) for pathologic diagnosis, and to determine whether additional IHC can replace surgical excision for the diagnosis of papillary breast lesions classified as benign on 14-gage CNB. A total of 274 consecutive papillary lesions were studied, including available imaging findings, CNB specimens and surgical specimens. Two rounds of retrospective review of the pathologic slides from CNB were performed by a pathologist, including H&E staining (first round; 1R, n = 274) and IHC of the benign papillomas (second round; 2R). The upgrade-to-malignancy rate was assessed for benign papillomas with comparison between 1R and 2R. The final diagnosis was based on surgical pathology. The clinicoradiologic findings were compared between the benign and malignant papillomas at the time of final diagnosis. In 1R, 204 benign papillomas were identified. During 2R using IHC, three carcinomas and ten atypical papillomas were diagnosed. Among the 204 benign papillomas from 1R, 15 were found to be carcinomas (upgrade-to-malignancy rate, 7.4 %) at the time of final diagnosis. With 2R, the overall upgrade-to-malignancy rate was decreased to 4.7 % (9/192, p = 0.3680). Older age and upgrades made after IHC review resulted in higher upgrade-to-malignancy rates (odds ratio, 4.133, 95 % CI 1.393–12.267, p = 0.0106; 134.46, 95 % CI 17.886–infinity, p < 0.0001, respectively). The use of IHC may decrease the upgrade-to-malignancy rate for benign papillary lesions after US-guided 14-gage CNB and help to more accurately predict malignancy at the time of surgery. Despite these findings, a misdiagnosis still occurred in our study, suggesting that IHC cannot replace surgical excision for diagnosis of benign papillary lesions of the breast.     

Does pre-operative breast magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography and breast ultrasonography change the operative management of breast carcinoma?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used for the local staging of breast cancer, especially to determine the extent of multiple lesions and to identify occult malignancies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pre-operative MRI on the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Between January 2006 and May 2007, 535 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who planned to undergo breast conserving surgery had clinical examinations, bilateral mammography, breast ultrasonography, and breast MRI. The radiologic findings and clinicopathologic data were reviewed retrospectively. Ninety-eight (18.3%) patients had additional lesions, shown as suspicious lesions on breast MRI, but not detected with conventional methods. Eighty-four (15.7%) of these patients had a change in surgical treatment plans based on the MRI results. Forty-seven (8.8%) of the 84 patients had additional malignancies; the other 37 patients (6.9%) had benign lesions. The positive predictive value for MRI-based surgery was 56.0% (47 of 84 patients). During the period of study, the use of pre-operative MRI was increased with time (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.16–1.23; P < 0.001), but the mastectomy rate did not change significantly (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.95–1.00; P = 0.059). Multiple factors were analyzed to identify the patients more likely to undergo appropriate and complete surgery based on the additional findings of the pre-operative MRI, but the results were not statistically significant. This research suggests that a pre-operative MRI can potentially lower the rate of incompletely excised malignancies by identifying additional occult cancer prior to surgery and does not lead to an increase in the mastectomy rate; however, because some benign lesions are indistinguishable from suspicious or malignant lesions, excessive surgical procedures are unnecessarily performed in a significant portion of patients. In the future, the criteria for the use of MRI in local staging of breast cancer should be established.     

Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography

Purpose  To compare the reading time for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) using a recommended reading method and to provide data regarding the reading time required to establish the optimal conditions for digital mammography. Methods  Reading time was measured during image interpretation by two expert radiologists. FFDM images were taken for screening, and readers A and B read images obtained for 79 and 82 patients, respectively. The mammograms read by both readers were similar with regard to patients' backgrounds. Further, 100 SFM mammograms were read to perform comparative analyses. The reading times were compared. Result  Reader A recorded mean reading times of 31 and 56 s, respectively, for the SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and means of 45 and 62 s for those with comparative mammograms. Reader B recorded mean reading times of 43 and 74 s, respectively, for SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and 53 and 66 s for those with comparative mammograms. Conclusion  The reading time is prolonged in FFDM performed according to a recommended method. Post-processing is thought to affect the reading time.     

Duodenal stump fistula after gastric surgery for malignancies: a retrospective analysis of risk factors in a single centre experience

Background

Duodenal stump fistula (DSF) is the most severe surgical complication after gastrectomy. This study was designed to assess the incidence, to observe the consequences, and to identify the risk factors associated with DSF after gastrectomy.

Methods

All procedures involving total or sub-total gastrectomy for cancer, performed between January 1987 and June 2012 in a single institution, were prospectively entered into a computerized database. Risk factors analysis was performed between DSF patients, patients with complete uneventful postoperative course and patients with other major surgical complications.

Results

Over this 25 years period, 1287 gastrectomies were performed. DSF was present in 32 cases (2.5 %). Mean post-operative onset was 6.6 days. 19 patients were treated conservatively and 13 surgically. Mean DSF healing time was 31.2 and 45.2 days in the two groups, respectively. Mortality was registered in 3 cases (9.37 %), due to septic shock (2 cases) and bleeding (1 case). In monovariate analysis, heart disease (p < 0.001), pre-operative lymphocytes number (p = 0.003) and absence of manual reinforcement over duodenal stump (p < 0.001) were found to be DSF-specific risk factors, whereas liver cirrhosis (p = 0.002), pre-operative albumin levels (p < 0.001) and blood losses (p = 0.002) were found to be non-DSF-specific risk factors. In multivariate analysis heart disease (OR 5.18; p < 0.001), liver cirrhosis (OR 13.2; p < 0.001), bio-humoral nutritional status impairment (OR 2.29; p = 0.05), blood losses >300 mL (OR 4.47; p = 0.001) and absence of manual reinforcement over duodenal stump (OR 30.47; p < 0.001) were found to be independent risk factors for DSF development.

Conclusions

Duodenal stump fistula still remains a life-threatening complication after gastric surgery. Co-morbidity factors, nutritional status impairment and surgical technical difficulties should be considered as important risk factors in developing this awful complication.     

Variable aromatase inhibitor plasma concentrations do not correlate with circulating estrogen concentrations in post-menopausal breast cancer patients

Purpose

To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening.

Methods

Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3–22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected.

Results

Performance parameters were compared for women screened with digital mammography alone (n = 278,908) and digital mammography + tomosynthesis (n = 173,414). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography produced significant reductions in recall rates for all age groups and significant increases in cancer detection rates for women 40–69. Largest recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis was for women 40–49, decreasing from 137 (95% CI 117–156) to 115 (95% CI 95–135); difference, ?22 (95% CI ?26 to ?18; P < .001). Simultaneous increase in invasive cancer detection rate for women 40–49 from 1.6 (95% CI 1.2–1.9) to 2.7 (95% CI 2.2–3.1) with tomosynthesis (difference, 1.1; 95% CI 0.6–1.6; P < .001) was observed.

Conclusions

Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography increased invasive cancer detection rates for women 40–69 and decreased recall rates for all age groups with largest performance gains seen in women 40–49. The similar performance seen with tomosynthesis screening for women in their 40s compared to digital mammography for women in their 50s argues strongly for commencement of mammography screening at age 40 using tomosynthesis.