Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader,multicase study

Objectives

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience.

Methods

All women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve.

Results

CESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188).

Conclusion

CESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience.

Key Points

? CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography ? CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader’s experience ? CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs

     

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size

Objectives

To compare mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers using postoperative histology as the gold standard.

Methods

After ethical approval, 80 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent MG, CESM, and MRI examinations. CESM was reviewed by an independent experienced radiologist, and the maximum dimension of suspicious lesions was measured. For MG and MRI, routine clinical reports of breast specialists, with judgment based on the BI-RADS lexicon, were used. Results of each imaging technique were correlated to define the index cancer. Fifty-nine cases could be compared to postoperative histology for size estimation.

Results

Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG, 80/80 CESM, and 77/79 MRI examinations. Average lesion largest dimension was 27.31 mm (SD 22.18) in MG, 31.62 mm (SD 24.41) in CESM, and 27.72 mm (SD 21.51) in MRI versus 32.51 mm (SD 29.03) in postoperative histology. No significant difference was found between lesion size measurement on MRI and CESM compared with histopathology.

Conclusion

Our initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI in breast cancer detection than MG and a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment.

Key points

? Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice. ? Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement. ? Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography. ? CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. ? Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.     

Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis

Purpose

To analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx).

Materials and methods

CESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically.

Results

One hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings.

Conclusion

CESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study.

Key Points

? DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography. ? DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading. ? Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.     

3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of 3-Tesla (T) breast MRI in patients presenting with microcalcifications on mammography.

Methods

Between January 2006 and May 2009, 123 patients with mammographically detected BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications underwent 3-T breast MRI before undergoing breast biopsy. All MRIs of the histopathologically confirmed index lesions were reviewed by two breast radiologists. The detection rate of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was evaluated, as well as the added diagnostic value of MRI over mammography and breast ultrasound.

Results

At pathology, 40/123 (33 %) lesions proved malignant; 28 (70 %) DCIS and 12 (30 %) invasive carcinoma. Both observers detected all invasive malignancies at MRI, as well as 79 % (observer 1) and 86 % (observer 2) of in situ lesions. MRI in addition to conventional imaging led to a significant increase in area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve from 0.67 (95 % CI 0.56–0.79) to 0.79 (95 % CI 0.70–0.88, observer 1) and to 0.80 (95 % CI 0.71–0.89, observer 2), respectively.

Conclusions

3-T breast MRI was shown to add significant value to conventional imaging in patients presenting with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Key points

? 3-T MRI is increasingly used for breast imaging in clinical practice. ? On 3-T breast MRI up to 86 % of DCIS lesions are detected. ? 3-T MRI increases the diagnostic value in patients with mammographically detected microcalcifications.     

Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment?

Objective

To assess the positive predictive values of incremental breast cancer detection (PPV1) in relation to the mammographic breast density and of performed biopsies (PPV3) resulting from supplemental bilateral physician-performed whole-breast ultrasound (US) at recall of a population-based digital mammography screening programme.

Methods

A total of 2,803 recalled screening participants (50–69 years), who had additional bilateral US with prospectively completed documentation [grading of breast density (ACR 1–4), biopsy recommendation related to US and mammography], were included.

Results

The PPV1 of supplemental cancer detection only by US was 0.21 % (6/2,803) compared to 13.8 % (386/2,803) by mammography. The PPV1 of US-only cancer detection was 0 %, 0.16 % (2/1,220), 0.22 % (3/1,374) and 1.06 % (1/94) for women with breast density of ACR 1, ACR 2, ACR 3 and ACR 4, respectively. The PPV3 of US-only lesion detection was 33.3 % (9/27) compared to 38.0 % (405/1,066) by mammography. The proportion of invasive cancers no larger than 10 mm was 37.5 % (3/8) for US-only detection compared to 38.4 % (113/294) for mammographic detection.

Conclusion

Bilateral ultrasound at recall, in addition to the assessment of screen-detected mammographic abnormalities, resulted in a low PPV of incremental cancer detection only by US, without a disproportional increase of false-positive biopsies.

Key Points

? Bilateral breast ultrasound was assessed in women recalled following digital mammography screening. ? Overall breast cancer detection rate reached the desired level of European guidelines. ? Additional ultrasound-only cancer detection had a low positive predictive value (0.21 %). ? Ultrasound did detect additional unexpected breast cancers in breasts graded ACR 2–4. ? Bilateral breast ultrasound offers little or only marginal benefit in routine screening.     

Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study

Objectives

Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation has been reported at single reading. However, screening results of pairs of screening radiologists have not yet been published. We determined variations in screening performances among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading.

Methods

We included pairs of screening radiologists with at least 7,500 screening examinations per pair, obtained between 1997 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, breast imaging reports, surgical reports and pathology results were collected of all referred women and interval cancers. Referral rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value and sensitivity were calculated for each pair.

Results

A total of 310,906 screening mammograms, read by 26 pairs of screening radiologists, were included for analysis. The referral rate ranged from 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.8 %–1.2 %) to 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.3 %–1.8 %), the cancer detection rate from 4.0 (95 % CI 2.8–5.2) to 6.3 (95 % CI 4.5–8.0) per 1,000 screens. The programme sensitivity and positive predictive value of referral ranged from 55.1 % (95 % CI 45.1 %–65.1 %) to 81.5 % (95 % CI 73.4 %–89.6 %) and from 28.7 % (95 % CI 20.8 %–36.6 %) to 49.5 % (95 % CI 39.7 %–59.3 %), respectively.

Conclusion

We found significant variations in screening outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. This stresses the importance of monitoring screening results on a local scale.

Key Points

? Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation is known at single reading ? Population-based study showed significant variations in outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists ? Local monitoring and regular feedback are important to optimise screening outcome     

Accuracy of CESM versus conventional mammography and ultrasound in evaluation of BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions with pathological correlation

Aim

Assess accuracy of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus conventional mammography and ultrasound in evaluation of BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions with pathological correlation.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.

Methods

One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM?+?MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.

Results

Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM?+?MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM?+?MG and 0.79 for MRI.

Conclusions

This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.

Key Points

? CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics.? CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance.? CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI.? Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts.? CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.

     

Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings

Objectives

To develop a prediction model for breast cancer based on common mammographic findings on screening mammograms aiming to reduce reader variability in assigning BI-RADS.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 352 positive screening mammograms of women participating in the Dutch screening programme (Nijmegen region, 2006–2008). The following mammographic findings were assessed by consensus reading of three expert radiologists: masses and mass density, calcifications, architectural distortion, focal asymmetry and mammographic density, and BI-RADS. Data on age, diagnostic workup and final diagnosis were collected from patient records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to build a breast cancer prediction model, presented as a nomogram.

Results

Breast cancer was diagnosed in 108 cases (31 %). The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was found for spiculated masses (96 %) and the lowest for well-defined masses (10 %). Characteristics included in the nomogram are age, mass, calcifications, architectural distortion and focal asymmetry.

Conclusion

With our nomogram we developed a tool assisting screening radiologists in determining the chance of malignancy based on mammographic findings. We propose cutoff values for assigning BI-RADS in the Dutch programme based on our nomogram, which will need to be validated in future research. These values can easily be adapted for use in other screening programmes.

Key points

? There is substantial reader variability in assigning BI-RADS in mammographic screening. ? There are no strict guidelines linking mammographic findings to BI-RADS categories. ? We developed a model (nomogram) predicting the presence of breast cancer. ? Our nomogram is based on common findings on positive screening mammograms. ? The nomogram aims to assist screening radiologists in assigning BI-RADS categories.     

Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography

Objective

To determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography.

Methods

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance.

Results

The combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX_(CC+MLO)) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = ?0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P?=?0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P?=?0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P?=?0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P?=?0.002).

Conclusion

In this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.

Key Points

? Breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has emerged as a valuable adjunct to mammography (MX). ? Combination DBT/MX demonstrated non-inferior clinical performance to standard two-view MX. ? Combination DBT/MX was superior to two-view MX in recognising benign lesions. ? Combination DBT/MX reduced variability compared with two-view MX.     

Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates

Objectives:

To investigate the referral pattern after the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Methods:

Preceding the nationwide digitalisation of the Dutch screening programme, an FFDM feasibility study was conducted. Detection and referral rates for FFDM and screen-film mammography (SFM) were compared for first and subsequent screens. Furthermore, radiological characteristics of referrals in digital screening were assessed.

Results:

A total of 312,414 screening mammograms were performed (43,913 digital and 268,501 conventional), with 4,473 consecutive referrals (966 following FFDM). Initially the FFDM referral rate peaked, and many false-positive results were noted as a consequence of pseudolesions and increased detection of (benign) microcalcifications. A higher overall referral rate was observed in FFDM screening in both first and subsequent examinations (p?<?.001), with a significant increase in cancer detection (p?=?.010).

Conclusion:

As a result of initial inexperience with digital screening images implementing FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening programme may lead to a strong, but temporary increase in referral. Dedicated training in digital screening for radiographers and screening radiologists is therefore recommended. Referral rates decrease and stabilise (learning curve effect) at a higher level than in conventional screening, yet with significantly enhanced cancer detection.     

Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration

Objectives

To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening.

Methods

A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A—2D; Arm B—2D?+?CAD; Arm C—2D?+?3D; Arm D—synthesised 2D?+?3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A?+?B) and 2D?+?3D (Arm C?+?D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P?<?0.05).

Results

Pre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D?+?3D, respectively (P?<?0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P?=?0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P?<?0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P?=?0.97). Using 2D?+?3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P?<?0.001).

Conclusion

Double reading of 2D?+?3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening.

Key Points

? Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. ? Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. ? Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.     

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool

Objectives

To assess the suitability of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) as a quality assessment tool in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

Methods

The data of 93,793 screened women in the Amsterdam screening region (November 2005–July 2006) were reviewed. BI-RADS categories, work-up, age, final diagnosis and final TNM classification were available from the screening registry. Interval cancers were obtained through linkage with the cancer registry. BI-RADS was introduced as a pilot in the Amsterdam region before the nationwide introduction of digital mammography (2009–2010).

Results

A total of 1,559 women were referred to hospital (referral rate 1.7?%). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 485 women (detection rate 0.52?%); 253 interval cancers were reported, yielding a programme sensitivity of 66?% and specificity of 99?%. BI-RADS 0 had a lower positive predictive value (PPV, 14.1?%) than BI-RADS 4 (39.1?%) and BI-RADS 5 (92.9?%; P?P?Conclusion The significant differences in PPV, invasive procedures and tumour size match with stratification into BI-RADS categories. It revealed inter-observer variability between screening radiologists and can thus be used as a quality assessment tool in screening and as a stratification tool in diagnostic work-up.

Key Points

? The BI-RADS atlas is widely used in breast cancer screening programmes. ? There were significant differences in results amongst different BI-RADS categories. ? Those differences represented the radiologists’ degree of suspicion for malignancy, thus enabling stratification of referrals. ? BI-RADS can be used as a quality assessment tool in screening. ? Training should create more uniformity in applying the BI-RADS lexicon.     

A novel functional infrared imaging system coupled with multiparametric computerised analysis for risk assessment of breast cancer

Objective

We evaluated a functional three-dimensional (3D) infrared imaging system (3DIRI) coupled with multiparametric computer analysis for risk assessment of breast cancer. The technique provides objective risk assessment for the presence of a malignant tumour based on automated parameters derived from a clinically known training set.

Methods

Following institutional review board approval, we recruited 434 women for this prospective multicentre trial, including 256 healthy woman undergoing routine screening mammography with BI-RADS-1 results and 178 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. This was a two-phase study: an initial training and calibration phase, followed by a two-armed blinded evaluation phase (52 healthy and 66 with breast cancer). 3DIRI data sets were acquired using a non-contact, no radiation system.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of functional infrared imaging in providing the correct risk for the presence of breast cancer were 90.9 % and 72.5 %, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 86 %. Forty-two of the 60 (70 %) cancers in women correctly classified by the system as suspicious were smaller than 20 mm in size.

Conclusion

The preliminary blinded results of this novel technology show sufficient performance of functional infrared imaging in providing risk assessment for breast cancer to warrant further clinical studies.

Key Points

? 3D functional infrared imaging (3DIRI) provides new metabolic signatures from breast lesions. ? 3DIRI offers high sensitivity for risk assessment of breast cancer. ? It also has reasonable specificity. ? This initial experience warrants further evaluation in larger clinical trials.     

Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software

Objective

To compare breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software.

Methods

Following institutional approval and written informed consent from all participating women, both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) were obtained. Breast percentage density was calculated with software on DBT and FFDM.

Results

Fifty consecutive patients (mean age, 51?years; range, 35–83?years) underwent both FFDM and DBT. Using a method based on the integral curve, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1?±?12.1 for FFDM and 51.9?±?6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 16.2% (P?P?r?=?0.54, P?r?=?0.44, P?Conclusion Breast density appeared to be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis.

Key Points

• Breast density is considered to be an independent risk factor for cancer
• Density can be assessed on full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
• Objective automated estimation of breast density eliminates subjectivity
• Automated estimation is more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation
• Breast density may be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis

     

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers.

Methods

Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests.

Results

The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P?=?0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P?=?0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P?<?0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P?=?0 .0282).

Conclusions

DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI.

Key Points

? Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography. ? DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI. ? DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.

     

Short interval follow-up after a benign concordant MR-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy – is it worthwhile?

Objective

To determine the utility of short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy.

Materials and methods

Institutional review board approved, retrospective review of consecutive biopsies performed over 3 years (2007–10) yielded 170 women with 188 lesions that were considered benign concordant. Indication for original study, biopsy results, follow-up recommendations, compliance and outcomes of subsequent MRI and mammography examinations were reviewed.

Results

The most common indication for breast MRI was high-risk screening 119/170 (70 %). Overall, 59 % of lesions (113/188) had follow-up MRI. Of those lesions (n?=?113), 43 % (49/113) presented within 7 months, 26 % (29/113) presented within 8–13 months, 11.5 % (13/113) presented within 14–22 months, and 19 % (22/113) presented after 23 months. At initial follow-up, 37 % of lesions were stable and 61 % were decreased in size. Three lesions were recommended for excision based on follow-up imaging with one malignancy diagnosed 2 years following biopsy. One additional patient had MRI-detected bilateral cancers remote from the biopsy site 3 years after biopsy.

Conclusion

Overall cancer yield of lesions with follow-up MRI was 0.9 % (1/113); no cancers were detected at 6 months. Our data suggests that 6-month follow-up may not be required and that annual screening MRI would be acceptable to maintain a reasonable cancer detection rate.

Key Points

? Follow-up recommendations after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy remain controversial. ? Cancer detection rate was 0.9 % overall with no cancers detected at 6 months. ? Short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy may not be necessary.     

Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) as an adjunct modality to mammography for detecting breast cancer.

Methods

Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE (1984 to August 2012) and EMBASE (1994 to August 2012) were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of BSGI. The sensitivities for detecting subcentimetre cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were pooled. The potential of BSGI to complement mammography was also evaluated by identifying mammography-occult breast cancer.

Results

Analysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of BSGI in detecting breast cancer were as follows: sensitivity 95 % (95 % CI 93–96 %), specificity 80 % (95 % CI 78–82 %), positive likelihood ratio 4.63 (95 % CI 3.13–6.85), negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (95 % CI 0.05–0.14), and diagnostic odds ratio 56.67 (95 % CI 26.68–120.34). The area under the SROC was 0.9552 and the Q* point was 0.8977. The pooled sensitivities for detecting subcentimetre cancer and DCIS were 84 % (95 % CI 80–88 %) and 88 % (95 % CI 81–92 %), respectively. Among patients with normal mammography, 4 % were diagnosed with breast cancer by BSGI, and among those with mammography suggestive of malignancy or new biopsy-proven breast cancer, 6 % were diagnosed with additional cancers in the breast by BSGI.

Conclusion

BSGI had a high diagnostic performance as an excellent adjunct modality to mammography for detecting breast cancer. The ability to identify subcentimetre cancer and DCIS was also high.     

Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density

Objectives

To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter.

Methods

25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25 % density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison.

Results

Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9 %. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50 %, b: 50 %, c: 50 %) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9 %, b: 79.4 %, c: 80.7 %, p?<?0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9 %, b: 85.7 %, c: 83.2 %, p?<?0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100 %, b: 88.8 %, c: 100 %; p?<?0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0 %, b: 4.3 %, c: 6.9 %.

Conclusion

Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories.

Key Points

? Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9 %.? In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9 %-100 %. ? ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7 %) and SP was only 50 %. ? SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p?<?0.001).

     

Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases

Objectives

To evaluate characteristic features of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of sporadic breast cancer in women <40 years and to determine correlations with pathological and biological factors.

Methods

A retrospective review of radiological, clinicopathological and biological features of sporadic breast cancers for women under 40 years at our institution between 2007-2012 covering 91 patients. Mammography was available for 97 lesions, ultrasound for 94 and MRI for 38.

Results

The most common imaging features were masses, nearly all classified BI-RADS 4 or 5. On mammography microcalcifications alone accounted for 31 %, all suspicious. There were 42.6 % luminal B, 24.5 % luminal A, 19.1 % HER2-enriched and 10.6 % triple-negative (TN) tumours by immunohistochemistry. HER2 overexpression was correlated with the presence of calcifications at mammography (P?=?0.03). TN cancers more often had an oval shape and abrupt interface at ultrasound and rim enhancement on MRI. MRI features were suspicious for all cancers and rim enhancement of a mass was a significant predictor of triple-negative tumours (P?=?0.01).

Conclusions

The imaging characteristics of cancers in patients under 40 years without proven gene mutations do not differ from their older counterparts, but appear correlated to phenotypic profiles, which have a different distribution in young women compared to the general population.

Key Points

? Young women have more luminal B/HER2+ phenotypes than older women. ? The appearance of cancers is correlated with their biological profiles. ? Sporadic breast cancer imaging in young women is generally classified BI-RADS 4/5. ? Triple-negative cancers can be misinterpreted as benign, requiring thorough imaging analysis.