Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening

Global Radiomic Features from Mammography for Predicting Difficult-To-Interpret Normal Cases

This work aimed to investigate whether global radiomic features (GRFs) from mammograms can predict difficult-to-interpret normal cases (NCs). Assessments from 537 readers interpreting 239 normal mammograms were used to categorise cases as 120 difficult-to-interpret and 119 easy-to-interpret based on cases having the highest and lowest difficulty scores, respectively. Using lattice- and squared-based approaches, 34 handcrafted GRFs per image were extracted and normalised. Three classifiers were constructed: (i) CC and (ii) MLO using the GRFs from corresponding craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique images only, based on the random forest technique for distinguishing difficult- from easy-to-interpret NCs, and (iii) CC + MLO using the median predictive scores from both CC and MLO models. Useful GRFs for the CC and MLO models were recognised using a scree test. The CC and MLO models were trained and validated using the leave-one-out-cross-validation. The models' performances were assessed by the AUC and compared using the DeLong test. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine if the 34 GRFs differed between difficult- and easy-to-interpret NCs and if difficulty level based on the traditional breast density (BD) categories differed among 115 low-BD and 124 high-BD NCs. The CC + MLO model achieved higher performance (0.71 AUC) than the individual CC and MLO model alone (0.66 each), but statistically non-significant difference was found (all p > 0.05). Six GRFs were identified to be valuable in describing difficult-to-interpret NCs. Twenty features, when compared between difficult- and easy-to-interpret NCs, differed significantly (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in difficulty between low- and high-BD NCs (p = 0.709). GRF mammographic analysis can predict difficult-to-interpret NCs.

Breast cancer missed at screening; hindsight or mistakes?

PURPOSE

To investigate radiologists' interpretation scores of screening mammograms prior to diagnosis of screen-detected and interval breast cancers retrospectively classified as missed or true negative.

METHODS

We included data on radiologists' interpretation scores at screening prior to diagnosis for 1223 screen-detected and 1007 interval cancer cases classified as missed or true negative in an informed consensus-based review. All prior screening examinations were independently scored 1-5 by two radiologists; score 1 by both was considered concordant negative, score ≥ 2 by one radiologist discordant, and score ≥ 2 by both concordant positive. We analyzed associations between interpretation, review categories, mammographic features and histopathological findings using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among screen-detected cancers, 31% of missed and 10% of true negative cancers had discordant or concordant positive interpretation at prior screening. The corresponding percentages for interval cancer were 21% and 8%. Age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for missed screen-detected cancer was 3.8 (95% CI: 2.6-5.4) after discordant and 5.5 (95% CI: 3.2-9.5) after concordant positive interpretation, using concordant negative as reference. Corresponding ORs for missed interval cancer were 3.0 (95% CI: 2.0-4.5) for discordant and 6.3 (95% CI: 2.3-17.5) for concordant positive interpretation. Asymmetry was the dominating mammographic feature at prior screening for all, except concordant positive screen-detected cancers where a mass dominated. Histopathological characteristics did not vary statistically with interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cancers were interpreted negatively at screening prior to diagnosis. Increased risk for missed screen-detected or interval cancer was observed after positive interpretation at prior screening.

False-positive incidental lesions detected on contrast-enhanced breast MRI: clinical and imaging features

PURPOSE

To identify demographic and imaging features of MRI-detected enhancing lesions without clinical, ultrasound, and mammographic correlation associated with false-positive outcomes, impacting patient care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective multi-institutional study of imaging studies and patient's chart review of consecutive women with MRI-detected enhancing lesions without clinical, mammogram, or ultrasound correlation between January and December 2018, who underwent MRI-guided biopsy. According to the BI-RADS lexicon, lesions' frequency and imaging features were recorded. The demographic and imaging characteristics variables were correlated with histopathology as the gold standard and an uneventful follow-up of at least one year. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the correlation between the baseline variables such as age, genetic mutation, family history of breast cancer, personal history of breast cancer, MRI indication, background parenchymal enhancement, and MRI characteristic of the lesion with the false-positive results in main data and subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen women (median age 49 years; range 26-85 years) with 219 MRI-detected enhancing lesions that underwent MRI-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy during the study period fulfilled the study criteria and formed the study cohort. Out of 219, 180 lesions (82.2%) yielded benign pathology results, including 137 benign outcomes (76%) and 43 high-risk lesions (24%). Most demographic and imaging characteristics variables did not help to differentiate malignant from benign lesions. The variables that showed statistically significant association with true-positive results in univariate analyses were age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0015), irregular mass-lesion shape when compared with oval/round mass lesion (OR 11.2; 95% CI 1.6-78.4; p = 0.015), and clumped and clustered ring of enhancement when compared with homogeneous (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.40-7.40; p = 0.0058). For participants with mass breast lesion, the hyperintense signal on the T2-weighted sequence (compared to the normal fibroglandular signal) was significantly related to the false-positive result (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.76; p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Young patients, oval/round mass-lesion shape, and homogeneous pattern of non-mass enhancement showed the strongest association with false-positive results of enhancing lesions depicted by MRI. For participants with mass breast lesion, T2-bright mass lesion showed significant association with false-positive result. It may impact the patient's management with a suggestion of follow-up rather than interventional procedure when these demographic and imaging parameters are present, consequently decreasing the patient's anxiety and health care costs.

Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening

Women with false-positive mammography screening results have a two- to four-fold higher risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to investigate if the subsequent risk of breast cancer after a false-positive mammography screening is associated with the received diagnostic assessment. The study population consisted of women who underwent false-positive mammography screening from January 2010 to June 2019. They were categorised into seven groups depending on the elements in the assessment (standard care: additional mammography, ultrasound, and if they had a relevant biopsy). Risks of interval cancer, next-round screen-detected cancer, and long-term breast cancer for non-standard care assessments were compared to standard care assessments using Binomial and Cox regression models. We included 44,279 women with a false-positive result. Invasive assessments that lacked an ultrasound or additional mammography were not more associated with an increased risk of subsequent cancers compared to that of 'all three elements'. The few assessments that included 'only ultrasound' or 'only mammography' resulted in higher relative risks of next-round screen-detected cancer of 1.52 (95% CI: 0.93-2.47) and 1.67 (95% CI: 0.54-5.16), respectively, compared to that of standard care. The increased subsequent risk of breast cancer among women with a previous false-positive result was not found to be correlated with the choice of elements in the assessment process.

Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives

Simple Summary

Nearly all breast cancer patients survive for more than five years when the tumor is found early and in the localized stage. Regular clinical breast examinations, mammograms, and monthly self-exams of the breasts all contribute to early detection. However, late-stage breast cancers are common in many Asian countries. Low-income countries suffer from a lack of resources for breast cancer screening. High-income countries, on the other hand, are not benefiting fully from national breast screening programs due to an underutilization of the preventive healthcare services available. Existing reviews on Asian breast cancers are heavily focused on risk factors. The question of whether we should adopt or adapt the knowledge generated from non-Asian breast cancers would benefit from an extension into screening guidelines. In addition, several Asian countries are piloting studies that move away from the age-based screening paradigm.

Abstract

Close to half (45.4%) of the 2.3 million breast cancers (BC) diagnosed in 2020 were from Asia. While the burden of breast cancer has been examined at the level of broad geographic regions, literature on more in-depth coverage of the individual countries and subregions of the Asian continent is lacking. This narrative review examines the breast cancer burden in 47 Asian countries. Breast cancer screening guidelines and risk-based screening initiatives are discussed.

Malignancy risk of indeterminate mammographic calcification in symptomatic breast clinics

BACKGROUND

To explore the potential risk factors predicting malignancy in patients with indeterminate incidental mammographic microcalcification and to evaluate the short-term risk of developing malignancy.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2015, one hundred and fifty (150) consecutive patients with indeterminate mammographic microcalcifications who had undergone stereotactic biopsy were evaluated. Clinical and mammographic features were recorded and compared with histopathological biopsy results. In patients with malignancy, postsurgical findings and surgical upgrade, if any, were recorded. Linear regression analysis (SPSS V.25) was used to evaluate significant variables predicting malignancy. OR with 95% CIs was calculated for all variables. All patients were followed up for a maximum of 10 years. The mean age of the patients was 52 years (range 33-79 years).

RESULTS

There were a total of 55 (37%) malignant results in this study cohort. Age was an independent predictor of breast malignancy with an OR (95% CI) of 1.10 (1.03 to 1.16). Mammographic microcalcification size, pleomorphic morphology, multiple clusters and linear/segmental distribution were significantly associated with malignancy with OR (CI) of 1.03 (1.002 to 1.06), 6.06 (2.24 to 16.66), 6.35 (1.44 to 27.90) and 4.66 (1.07 to 20.19). The regional distribution of microcalcification had an OR of 3.09 (0.92 to 10.3), but this was not statistically significant. Patients with previous breast biopsies had a lower risk of breast malignancy than patients with no prior biopsy (p=0.034).

CONCLUSION

Multiple clusters, linear/segmental distribution, pleomorphic morphology, size of mammographic microcalcifications and increasing age were independent predictors of malignancy. Having a previous breast biopsy did not increase malignancy risk.

Ten years follow-up of histologically benign calcifications in the breast after vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy (VASB): Is additional mammographic follow-up warranted?

Objective

This study assessed the short-term and the long-term breast cancer rate in patients with benign histopathologic results after a vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy (VASB) for calcifications.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who had a benign diagnosis after VASB to analyze breast calcifications. Data of breast cancer development at short-term (four years) and long-term follow-up was gathered. Breast cancer rates in our cohort were compared to the breast cancer incidence in the general population.

Results

Of 1376 patients who underwent VASB to analyze breast calcifications, 823 had a benign histopathologic diagnosis. During short-term follow-up, eight patients developed breast cancer. During the mean long-term follow-up period of 9.3 ± 3.1 years, 22 patients were diagnosed with ipsilateral breast cancer. The incidence rate of breast cancer after benign biopsy was comparable to the rate in the general population.

Conclusion

In patients with VASB-confirmed benign calcifications of the breast, we found no excess incidence of ipsilateral breast cancer during ten years follow-up. Therefore, in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer (due to a history of breast cancer or familial risk) annual mammography should be sufficient. Patients with a population-based risk may be monitored via biennial mammography by the national screening program. More frequent screening would provide no benefit.

•

1% developed ipsilateral breast cancer in four-year follow-up after biopsy.

•

3% developed ipsilateral breast cancer in ten-years follow-up after biopsy.

•

No statistically significant excess incidence of breast cancer after benign calcifications.

•

A benign histopathologic result after VASB can be considered a safe decision tool.

Risk of breast cancer two years after a benign biopsy depends on the mammographic feature prompting recall

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore whether the type of mammographic feature prompting a false-positive recall (FPR) during mammography screening influences the risk and timing of breast cancer diagnosis, particularly if assessed with invasive procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

We included information on women screened and recalled for further assessment in Spain between 1994 and 2015, with follow-up until 2017, categorizing FPRs by the assessment (noninvasive or invasive) and mammographic feature prompting the recall.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Breast cancer rates in the first two years after FPR (first period) and after two years (second period).

RESULTS

The study included 99,825 women with FPRs. In both periods, the breast cancer rate was higher in the invasive assessment group than in the noninvasive group (first period 12 ‰ vs 1.9 ‰, p < 0.001; second period 4.4‰ vs 3.1‰, p < 0.001). During the first period, the invasive assessment group showed diverse breast cancer rates for each type of mammographic feature, with a higher rate for asymmetric density (31.9‰). When the second period was compared with the first, the breast cancer rate decreased in the invasive assessment group (from 12‰ to 4.4‰, p < 0.001) and increased in the noninvasive assessment group (from 1.9‰ to 3.1‰, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the context of mammography screening, the risk of breast cancer diagnosis during the first two years after FPR was particularly high for women undergoing invasive assessment; importantly, the risk was modified by type of mammographic feature prompting the recall. This information could help to individualize follow-up after exclusion of malignancy.

Association of Microcalcification Clusters with Short-term Invasive Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Cancer Risk Factors

Using for-presentation and for-processing digital mammograms, the presence of microcalcifications has been shown to be associated with short-term risk of breast cancer. In a previous article we developed an algorithm for microcalcification cluster detection from for-presentation digital mammograms. Here, we focus on digitised mammograms and use a three-step algorithm. In total, 253 incident invasive breast cancer cases (with a negative mammogram between three months and two years before diagnosis, from which we measured microcalcifications) and 728 controls (also with prior mammograms) were included in a short-term risk study. After adjusting for potential confounding variables, we found evidence of an association between the number of microcalcification clusters and short-term (within 3-24 months) invasive breast cancer risk (per cluster OR = 1.30, 95% CI = (1.11, 1.53)). Using the 728 postmenopausal healthy controls, we also examined association of microcalcification clusters with reproductive factors and other established breast cancer risk factors. Age was positively associated with the presence of microcalcification clusters (p = 4 × 10^-04). Of ten other risk factors that we studied, life time breastfeeding duration had the strongest evidence of association with the presence of microcalcifications (positively associated, unadjusted p = 0.001). Developing algorithms, such as ours, which can be applied on both digitised and digital mammograms (in particular for presentation images), is important because large epidemiological studies, for deriving markers of (clinical) risk prediction of breast cancer and prognosis, can be based on images from these different formats.

Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts

BACKGROUND

We assessed the long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer in women with a first or second false-positive screening result.

METHODS

Joint analysis had been performed using individual-level data from three population-based screening programs in Europe (Copenhagen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain). Overall, 75,513 screened women aged 50-69 years from Denmark (1991-2010), 556,640 from Norway (1996-2008), and 517,314 from Spain (1994-2010) were included. We used partly conditional Cox hazards models to assess the association between false-positive results and the risk of subsequent screen-detected and interval cancer.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 1,149,467 women underwent 3,510,450 screening exams, and 10,623 screen-detected and 5700 interval cancers were diagnosed. Compared to women with negative tests, those with false-positive results had a two-fold risk of screen-detected (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.93-2.16) and interval cancer (HR = 2.18, 95% CI: 2.02-2.34). Women with a second false-positive result had over a four-fold risk of screen-detected and interval cancer (HR = 4.71, 95% CI: 3.81-5.83 and HR = 4.22, 95% CI: 3.27-5.46, respectively). Women remained at an elevated risk for 12 years after the false-positive result.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with prior false-positive results had an increased risk of screen-detected and interval cancer for over a decade. This information should be considered to design personalised screening strategies based on individual risk.

Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study

Background Data on the value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for further assessment of screen-detected lesions are still limited. Purpose To compare screening mammography, single-view DBT and ultrasound-information (TS) vs. screening mammography, additional views and ultrasound-information (AV) for assessment of screen-detected abnormalities. Material and Methods The use of wide-angle DBT for screen-detected, soft-tissue abnormalities requiring additional views was investigated: 241 cases (206 benign and 35 malignant lesions), verified by histology or two-year follow-up, were read by ten readers as TS and as AV sets, yielding 2410 diagnoses for each set. Readings were randomly sequenced. Results The mean interval between readings was nine weeks (random sequence). Evaluation was breast-based. Overall, in terms of area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC; varying degree of suspicion cutoff), TS and AV readings showed similar performance: for TS, AUC was 0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.871-0.907) and for AV, AUC was 0.903 (95% CI = 0.886-0.921). TS readings had slightly higher sensitivity than AV readings (96.9% vs. 95.4%) but lower specificity (50% vs. 58.1%) and more variations between reader performance; absolute false negatives (FN) were reduced in 8/16 readers, equal in 5/16, and increased in only 3/16. Conclusion This study broadly confirms previous data showing equivalence of DBT to AV. However, bias against TS may have occurred since the region of interest was not indicated in the TS set as compared to its obvious identification on the AV set by the selected spot views. A key finding is that reader experience with DBT may be more important than so far reported.

Radiologists can detect the 'gist' of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Radiologists can detect abnormality in mammograms at above-chance levels after a momentary glimpse of an image. The study investigated this instantaneous perception of an abnormality, known as a “gist” response, when 23 radiologists viewed prior mammograms of women that were reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening. Five categories of cases were included: current cancer-containing mammograms, current mammograms of the normal breast contralateral to the cancer, prior mammograms of normal cases, prior mammograms with visible cancer signs in a breast from women who were initially reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening in the same breast, and prior mammograms without any visible cancer signs from women labelled as initially normal but subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Our findings suggest that readers can distinguish patients who were diagnosed with cancer, from individuals without breast cancer (normal category), at above-chance levels based on a half-second glimpse of the mammogram even before any lesion becomes visible on the mammogram. Although 20 of the 23 radiologists demonstrated this ability, radiologists’ abilities for perceiving the gist of the abnormal varied between the readers and appeared to be linked to expertise. These results could have implications for identifying women of higher than average risk of a future malignancy event, thus impacting upon tailored screening strategies.

The impact of compression force and pressure at prevalent screening on subsequent re-attendance in a national screening program

Adherence to screening may indirectly help assess whether a prior screening examination deters women from returning for a subsequent examination. We investigated whether compression force and pressure in mammography were associated with re-attendance among prevalently screened women in the organized breast cancer screening program in Norway. Data on compression force (kg) and pressure (kPa) from women's first screening examination in the program (prevalent screening) and subsequent re-attendance were available for 31,225 women aged 50-68, screened during 2007-2013. Crude re-attendance rates and log-binomial regression models estimating the prevalence ratio of re-attendance were used to identify the association between compression force or pressure and re-attendance two-years later. Age and year at prevalent screening, county of residence, screening result (negative or false positive), breast volume, and breast density were included in analyses. Overall, 27,197 (87.1%) women re-attended the program. Re-attendance was highest for women who received a compression force of 10.0-13.9 kg (87.5%) or pressure of 9.0-17.9 kPa (87.8%) and lowest for those who received a compression force of <10.0 kg (85.0%) or pressure of <9.0 kPa (84.7%). The adjusted prevalence of re-attendance was 3% lower for women who received low compression force (<10.0 kg) and 2% lower for women who received low compression pressure (<9.0 kPa) relative to the reference groups (10.0-13.9 kg and 9.0-17.9 kPa, respectively). Future research related to re-attendance should also include information about women's experience of pain, anxiety and stress, as well as image quality.

Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening

Background

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been reported to frequently result in false-positive diagnoses, limiting its positive predictive value (PPV). However, for PPV calculation, all nonmalignant tissue changes are equally considered false-positive, although the respective prognostic importance, and thus patient management implications, of different pathologies may well differ. We investigated the pathology of false-positive diagnoses made by MRI compared with radiographic (digital mammography/tomosynthesis [DM/DBT]) screening.

Methods

We conducted an institutional review board-approved prospective analysis of 710 consecutive asymptomatic women at average risk for breast cancer who underwent vacuum biopsy with or without surgical biopsy for screen-detected DM/DBT (n = 344) or MRI (n = 366) findings. We compared the frequency of false-positive biopsies (given by PPV3), as well as the types of nonmalignant tissue changes that caused the respective false-positive biopsies. In an order of increasing relative risk of subsequent breast cancer, pathologies of false-positive biopsies were categorized as nonproliferative, simple proliferative, complex proliferative, or atypical proliferative (including lobular carcinoma in situ/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare distributions.

Results

Histology yielded nonmalignant tissue in 202 of 366 biopsies done for positive MRI studies and 195 of 344 biopsies for positive DM/DBT studies, respectively, yielding a similar PPV3 percentages of 44.8% (164 of 202) and 43.3% (149 of 202) for both methods. However, the distribution of tissue types that caused false-positive diagnoses differed significantly (p < 0.0001). On the basis of MRI, high-risk atypical proliferative changes (40.1%; 81 of 202) were most common, followed by complex proliferative changes (23.8%; 48 of 202). In DM/DBT, low-risk, nonproliferative changes were the dominant reason for false-positive diagnoses (49.7%; 97 of 195), followed by simple proliferative changes (25.2%; 51 of 195). Low-risk nonproliferative changes resulted in false-positive diagnoses based on MRI as infrequently as did high-risk atypical proliferative changes based on DM/DBT (18.8% [38 of 202] vs. 18.0% [35 of 195]). The likelihood of a false-positive diagnosis including atypias was twice as high in women undergoing biopsy for MRI findings (81 of 202; 40%) as for those with DM/DBT findings (35 of 195; 18%).

Conclusions

The prognostic importance, and thus the clinical implications, of false-positive diagnoses made on the basis of breast MRI vs. radiographic screening differed significantly, with a reversed prevalence of high- and low-risk lesions. This should be taken into account when discussing the rate of false-positive diagnoses (i.e., PPV levels of MRI vs. radiographic screening). Current benchmarks that rate the utility of breast cancer screening programs (i.e., cancer detection rates and PPVs) do not reflect these substantial biological differences and the different prognostic implications.

Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening

Women with false-positive results are commonly referred back to routine screening. Questions remain regarding their long-term outcome of breast cancer. We assessed the risk of screen-detected breast cancer in women with false-positive results. We conducted a joint analysis using individual level data from the population-based screening programs in Copenhagen and Funen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain. Overall, 150,383 screened women from Denmark (1991-2008), 612,138 from Norway (1996-2010), and 1,172,572 from Spain (1990-2006) were included. Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of screen-detected cancer for women with false-positive versus negative results. We analyzed information from 1,935,093 women 50-69 years who underwent 6,094,515 screening exams. During an average 5.8 years of follow-up, 230,609 (11.9%) women received a false-positive result and 27,849 (1.4%) were diagnosed with screen-detected cancer. The adjusted RR of screen-detected cancer after a false-positive result was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.93-2.09). Women who tested false-positive at first screen had a RR of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.77-1.96), whereas those who tested false-positive at third screening had a RR of 2.42 (95% CI: 2.21-2.64). The RR of breast cancer at the screening test after the false-positive result was 3.95 (95% CI: 3.71-4.21), whereas it decreased to 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17-1.34) three or more screens after the false-positive result. Women with false-positive results had a twofold risk of screen-detected breast cancer compared to women with negative tests. The risk remained significantly higher three or more screens after the false-positive result. The increased risk should be considered when discussing stratified screening strategies.