1
|
Zhang B, Guo Z, Lei Z, Liang W, Chen X. Kaiser score diagnosis of breast MRI lesions: Factors associated with false-negative and false-positive results. Eur J Radiol 2024; 178:111641. [PMID: 39053308 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111641] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2024] [Revised: 07/05/2024] [Accepted: 07/19/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE We sought factors associated with false-negative and false-positive results in the diagnosis of breast lesions using the Kaiser score (KS) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 1058 patients with 1058 breast lesions who underwent preoperative breast MRI with successful histopathologic results. Two radiologists assessed each lesion according to KS criteria, and clinicopathologic features and MRI findings were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with false-negative and false-positive KS results. RESULTS Of the 1058 lesions, 859 were malignant and 199 were benign. Particularly high misdiagnosis rates were observed for intraductal papilloma, inflammatory lesion, and mucinous carcinoma. For breast cancer, KS yielded 821 (95.6 %) true-positive and 38 (4.4 %) false-negative results. Multivariate analysis showed that smaller lesion size (≤1 cm) (OR, 3.698; 95 %CI, 1.430-9.567; p = 0.007), absence of ipsilateral breast hypervascularity (OR, 3.029; 95 %CI, 1.370-6.693; p = 0.006), and presence of hyperintensity on T2WI (OR, 2.405; 95 %CI, 1.121-5.162; p = 0.024) were significantly associated with false-negative breast cancer results. For benign lesions, KS yielded 141 (70.9 %) true-negative and 58 (29.1 %) false-positive results. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that non-mass enhancement lesions (OR, 4.660; 95 %CI, 2.018-10.762; p<0.001), moderate/high background parenchymal enhancement (OR, 2.402; 95 %CI, 1.180-4.892; p = 0.016), and the presence of hyperintensity on T2WI (OR, 2.986; 95 %CI, 1.386-6.433; p = 0.005) were significantly associated with false-positive KS results. CONCLUSION Several clinicopathologic and MRI features influence the accuracy of KS diagnosis. Understanding these factors may facilitate appropriate use of KS and guide alternative diagnostic approaches, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of breast lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bing Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao tong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Zhuanzhuan Guo
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao tong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Zhe Lei
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao tong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Wenbin Liang
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao tong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China
| | - Xin Chen
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao tong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Müller-Franzes G, Khader F, Tayebi Arasteh S, Huck L, Bode M, Han T, Lemainque T, Kather JN, Nebelung S, Kuhl C, Truhn D. Intraindividual Comparison of Different Methods for Automated BPE Assessment at Breast MRI: A Call for Standardization. Radiology 2024; 312:e232304. [PMID: 39012249 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.232304] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/17/2024]
Abstract
Background The level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at breast MRI provides predictive and prognostic information and can have diagnostic implications. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding BPE assessment. Purpose To investigate how well results of quantitative BPE assessment methods correlate among themselves and with assessments made by radiologists experienced in breast MRI. Materials and Methods In this pseudoprospective analysis of 5773 breast MRI examinations from 3207 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 10 [SD]), the level of BPE was prospectively categorized according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System by radiologists experienced in breast MRI. For automated extraction of BPE, fibroglandular tissue (FGT) was segmented in an automated pipeline. Four different published methods for automated quantitative BPE extractions were used: two methods (A and B) based on enhancement intensity and two methods (C and D) based on the volume of enhanced FGT. The results from all methods were correlated, and agreement was investigated in comparison with the respective radiologist-based categorization. For surrogate validation of BPE assessment, how accurately the methods distinguished premenopausal women with (n = 50) versus without (n = 896) antihormonal treatment was determined. Results Intensity-based methods (A and B) exhibited a correlation with radiologist-based categorization of 0.56 ± 0.01 and 0.55 ± 0.01, respectively, and volume-based methods (C and D) had a correlation of 0.52 ± 0.01 and 0.50 ± 0.01 (P < .001). There were notable correlation differences (P < .001) between the BPE determined with the four methods. Among the four quantitation methods, method D offered the highest accuracy for distinguishing women with versus without antihormonal therapy (P = .01). Conclusion Results of different methods for quantitative BPE assessment agree only moderately among themselves or with visual categories reported by experienced radiologists; intensity-based methods correlate more closely with radiologists' ratings than volume-based methods. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustav Müller-Franzes
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Firas Khader
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Luisa Huck
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Maike Bode
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Tianyu Han
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Teresa Lemainque
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Jakob Nikolas Kather
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Sven Nebelung
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Christiane Kuhl
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| | - Daniel Truhn
- From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany (G.M.F., F.K., S.T.A., L.H., M.B., T.H., T.L., S.N., C.K., D.T.); National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany (J.N.K.); Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.); and Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany (J.N.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Park GE, Kim SH, Nam Y, Kang J, Park M, Kang BJ. 3D Breast Cancer Segmentation in DCE-MRI Using Deep Learning With Weak Annotation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2024; 59:2252-2262. [PMID: 37596823 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2023] [Revised: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 08/03/2023] [Indexed: 08/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep learning models require large-scale training to perform confidently, but obtaining annotated datasets in medical imaging is challenging. Weak annotation has emerged as a way to save time and effort. PURPOSE To develop a deep learning model for 3D breast cancer segmentation in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) using weak annotation with reliable performance. STUDY TYPE Retrospective. POPULATION Seven hundred and thirty-six women with breast cancer from a single institution, divided into the development (N = 544) and test dataset (N = 192). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE 3.0-T, 3D fat-saturated gradient-echo axial T1-weighted flash 3D volumetric interpolated brain examination (VIBE) sequences. ASSESSMENT Two radiologists performed a weak annotation of the ground truth using bounding boxes. Based on this, the ground truth annotation was completed through autonomic and manual correction. The deep learning model using 3D U-Net transformer (UNETR) was trained with this annotated dataset. The segmentation results of the test set were analyzed by quantitative and qualitative methods, and the regions were divided into whole breast and region of interest (ROI) within the bounding box. STATISTICAL TESTS As a quantitative method, we used the Dice similarity coefficient to evaluate the segmentation result. The volume correlation with the ground truth was evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient. Qualitatively, three readers independently evaluated the visual score in four scales. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS The deep learning model we developed achieved a median Dice similarity score of 0.75 and 0.89 for the whole breast and ROI, respectively. The volume correlation coefficient with respect to the ground truth volume was 0.82 and 0.86 for the whole breast and ROI, respectively. The mean visual score, as evaluated by three readers, was 3.4. DATA CONCLUSION The proposed deep learning model with weak annotation may show good performance for 3D segmentations of breast cancer using DCE-MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ga Eun Park
- Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Hun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Yoonho Nam
- Division of Biomedical Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, Republic of Korea
| | - Junghwa Kang
- Division of Biomedical Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, Republic of Korea
| | - Minjeong Park
- Division of Biomedical Engineering, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin, Republic of Korea
| | - Bong Joo Kang
- Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wu T, Alikhassi A, Curpen B. How Does Diagnostic Accuracy Evolve with Increased Breast MRI Experience? Tomography 2023; 9:2067-2078. [PMID: 37987348 PMCID: PMC10661242 DOI: 10.3390/tomography9060162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Revised: 10/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Our institution is part of a provincial program providing annual breast MRI screenings to high-risk women. We assessed how MRI experience, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) affect the biopsy-proven predictive value (PPV3) and accuracy for detecting suspicious MRI findings. Methods: From all high-risk screening breast MRIs conducted between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2020, we reviewed all BI-RADS 4/5 observations with pathological tissue diagnoses. Overall and annual PPV3s were computed. Radiologists with fewer than ten observations were excluded from performance analyses. PPV3s were computed for each radiologist. We assessed how MRI experience, BPE, and FGT impacted diagnostic accuracy using logistic regression analyses, defining positive cases as malignancies alone (definition A) or malignant or high-risk lesions (definition B). Findings: There were 536 BI-RADS 4/5 observations with tissue diagnoses, including 77 malignant and 51 high-risk lesions. A total of 516 observations were included in the radiologist performance analyses. The average radiologist's PPV3 was 16 ± 6% (definition A) and 25 ± 8% (definition B). MRI experience in years correlated significantly with positive cases (definition B, OR = 1.05, p = 0.03), independent of BPE or FGT. Diagnostic accuracy improved exponentially with increased MRI experience (definition B, OR of 1.27 and 1.61 for 5 and 10 years, respectively, p = 0.03 for both). Lower levels of BPE significantly correlated with increased odds of findings being malignant, independent of FGT and MRI experience. Summary: More extensive MRI reading experience improves radiologists' diagnostic accuracy for high-risk or malignant lesions, even in MRI studies with increased BPE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Afsaneh Alikhassi
- Breast Imaging Division, Medical Imaging Department, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada; (T.W.); (B.C.)
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang H, Gao L, Chen X, Wang SJ. Quantitative evaluation of Kaiser score in diagnosing breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with high-grade background parenchymal enhancement. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2023; 13:6384-6394. [PMID: 37869283 PMCID: PMC10585520 DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 10/24/2023]
Abstract
Background High-grade background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), including moderate and marked, poses a considerable challenge for the diagnosis of breast disease due to its tendency to increase the rate of false positives and false negatives. The purpose of our study was to explore whether the Kaiser score can be used for more accurate assessment of benign and malignant lesions in high-grade BPE compared with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Methods A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) scans from 2 medical centers. Included were patients who underwent DCE-MRI demonstrating high-grade BPE and who had a pathology-confirmed diagnosis. Excluded were patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or who had undergone biopsy prior to MRI examination. Two physicians with more than 7 years of experience specializing in breast imaging diagnosis jointly reviewed breast magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Kaiser score was used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the BI-RADS from different BPE groups and different enhancement types. The performance of the Kaiser score and BI-RADS were compared according to diagnostic accuracy. Results A total of 126 cases of high-grade BPE from 2 medical centers were included in this study. The Kaiser score had a higher specificity and PPV than did the BI-RADS (87.5% vs. 46.3%) as well as a higher PPV (94.3% vs. 79.8%). The value of diagnostic accuracy and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Kaiser score (accuracy 0.928; 95% CI: 0.883-0.973) was larger than that for BI-RADS (accuracy 0.810; 95% CI: 0.741-0.879). Moreover, the Kaiser score had a significantly higher value of diagnostic accuracy for both mass and non-mass enhancement, especially mass lesions (Kaiser score: accuracy 0.947, 95% CI: 0.902-0.992; BI-RADS: accuracy 0.821, 95% CI: 0.782-0.860), with a P value of 0.006. Conclusions The Kaiser score is a useful diagnostic tool for the evaluation of high-grade BPE lesions, with a higher specificity, PPV, and diagnostic accuracy as compared to the BI-RADS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Wang
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
- Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Ling Gao
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
| | - Xu Chen
- Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, Nanjing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
| | - Shou-Ju Wang
- Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Watt GP, Thakran S, Sung JS, Jochelson MS, Lobbes MBI, Weinstein SP, Bradbury AR, Buys SS, Morris EA, Apte A, Patel P, Woods M, Liang X, Pike MC, Kontos D, Bernstein JL. Association of Breast Cancer Odds with Background Parenchymal Enhancement Quantified Using a Fully Automated Method at MRI: The IMAGINE Study. Radiology 2023; 308:e230367. [PMID: 37750771 PMCID: PMC10546291 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2023] [Revised: 06/13/2023] [Accepted: 06/16/2023] [Indexed: 09/27/2023]
Abstract
Background Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at breast MRI has been associated with increased breast cancer risk in several independent studies. However, variability of subjective BPE assessments have precluded its use in clinical practice. Purpose To examine the association between fully objective measures of BPE at MRI and odds of breast cancer. Materials and Methods This prospective case-control study included patients who underwent a bilateral breast MRI examination and were receiving care at one of three centers in the United States from November 2010 to July 2017. Breast volume, fibroglandular tissue (FGT) volume, and BPE were quantified using fully automated software. Fat volume was defined as breast volume minus FGT volume. BPE extent was defined as the proportion of FGT voxels with enhancement of 20% or more. Spearman rank correlation between quantitative BPE extent and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) BPE categories assigned by an experienced board-certified breast radiologist was estimated. With use of multivariable logistic regression, breast cancer case-control status was regressed on tertiles (low, moderate, and high) of BPE, FGT volume, and fat volume, with adjustment for covariates. Results In total, 536 case participants with breast cancer (median age, 48 years [IQR, 43-55 years]) and 940 cancer-free controls (median age, 46 years [IQR, 38-55 years]) were included. BPE extent was positively associated with BI-RADS BPE (rs = 0.54; P < .001). Compared with low BPE extent (range, 2.9%-34.2%), high BPE extent (range, 50.7%-97.3%) was associated with increased odds of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.74 [95% CI: 1.23, 2.46]; P for trend = .002) in a multivariable model also including FGT volume (OR, 1.39 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.98]) and fat volume (OR, 1.46 [95% CI: 1.04, 2.06]). The association of high BPE extent with increased odds of breast cancer was similar for premenopausal and postmenopausal women (ORs, 1.75 and 1.83, respectively; interaction P = .73). Conclusion Objectively measured BPE at breast MRI is associated with increased breast cancer odds for both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02301767 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bokacheva in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gordon P. Watt
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Snekha Thakran
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Janice S. Sung
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Maxine S. Jochelson
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Marc B. I. Lobbes
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Susan P. Weinstein
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Angela R. Bradbury
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Saundra S. Buys
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Elizabeth A. Morris
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Aditya Apte
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Prusha Patel
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Meghan Woods
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Xiaolin Liang
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Malcolm C. Pike
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Despina Kontos
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| | - Jonine L. Bernstein
- From the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (G.P.W., P.P., M.W., X.L., M.C.P., J.L.B.), Department of Radiology (J.S.S., M.S.J.), and Department of Medical Physics (A.A.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; Department of Radiology, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.T., S.P.W., A.R.B., D.K.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (S.S.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Davis, Calif (E.A.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Park GE, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Jung NY. The Role of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Based on Maximum-Intensity Projection in Young Patients with Marked Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI. Life (Basel) 2023; 13:1744. [PMID: 37629601 PMCID: PMC10455098 DOI: 10.3390/life13081744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2023] [Revised: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) utilizing maximum-intensity projection (MIP) was suggested as a cost-effective alternative tool without the risk of gadolinium-based contrast agents. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether DWI MIPs played a supportive role in young (≤60) patients with marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). The research included 1303 patients with varying degrees of BPE, and correlations between BPE on CE-MRI, the background diffusion signal (BDS) on DWI, and clinical parameters were analyzed. Lesion detection scores were compared between CE-MRI and DWI, with DWI showing higher scores. Among the 186 lesions in 181 patients with marked BPE on CE-MRI, the main lesion on MIPs of CE-MRI was partially or completely seen in 88.7% of cases, while it was not seen in 11.3% of cases. On the other hand, the main lesion on MIPs of DWI was seen in 91.4% of cases, with only 8.6% of cases showing no visibility. DWI achieved higher scores for lesion detection compared to CE-MRI. The presence of a marked BDS was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of a higher DWI score (p < 0.001), and non-mass lesions were associated with a decreased likelihood of a higher DWI score compared with mass lesions (p = 0.196). In conclusion, the inclusion of MIPs of DWI in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer patients, particularly young women with marked BPE, proved highly beneficial in improving the overall diagnostic process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ga-Eun Park
- Department of Radiology, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea; (G.-E.P.); (B.-J.K.); (S.-h.K.)
| | - Bong-Joo Kang
- Department of Radiology, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea; (G.-E.P.); (B.-J.K.); (S.-h.K.)
| | - Sung-hun Kim
- Department of Radiology, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea; (G.-E.P.); (B.-J.K.); (S.-h.K.)
| | - Na-Young Jung
- Department of Radiology, Uijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, College of Medicine, Eulji University, Uijeongbu 11759, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wang H, van der Velden BHM, Verburg E, Bakker MF, Pijnappel RM, Veldhuis WB, van Gils CH, Gilhuijs KGA. Assessing Quantitative Parenchymal Features at Baseline Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI and Cancer Occurrence in Women with Extremely Dense Breasts. Radiology 2023; 308:e222841. [PMID: 37552061 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222841] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/09/2023]
Abstract
Background Automated identification of quantitative breast parenchymal enhancement features on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI scans could provide added value in assessment of breast cancer risk in women with extremely dense breasts. Purpose To automatically identify quantitative properties of the breast parenchyma on baseline DCE MRI scans and assess their association with breast cancer occurrence in women with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This study represents a secondary analysis of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening trial. MRI was performed in eight hospitals between December 2011 and January 2016. After segmentation of fibroglandular tissue, quantitative features (including volumetric density, volumetric morphology, and enhancement characteristics) of the parenchyma were extracted from baseline MRI scans. Principal component analysis was used to identify parenchymal measures with the greatest variance. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to assess the association between breast cancer occurrence and quantitative parenchymal features, followed by stratification of significant features into tertiles. Results A total of 4553 women (mean age, 55.7 years ± 6 [SD]) with extremely dense breasts were included; of these women, 122 (3%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. Five principal components representing 96% of the variance were identified, and the component explaining the greatest independent variance (42%) consisted of MRI features relating to volume of enhancing parenchyma. Multivariable analysis showed that volume of enhancing parenchyma was associated with breast cancer occurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.18; P = .02). Additionally, women in the high tertile of volume of enhancing parenchyma showed a breast cancer occurrence twice that of women in the low tertile (HR, 2.09; 95% CI: 1.25, 3.61; P = .005). Conclusion In women with extremely dense breasts, a high volume of enhancing parenchyma on baseline DCE MRI scans was associated with increased occurrence of breast cancer as compared with a low volume of enhancing parenchyma. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grimm in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Wang
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Bas H M van der Velden
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Erik Verburg
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marije F Bakker
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Carla H van Gils
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
- From the Image Sciences Institute (H.W., B.H.M.v.d.V., E.V., K.G.A.G.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Radiology (R.M.P., W.B.V.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sallam H, Lenga L, Solbach C, Becker S, Vogl TJ. Correlation of background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI with breast cancer. Clin Radiol 2023:S0009-9260(23)00218-0. [PMID: 37330320 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2023.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Revised: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the prognostic value of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women referred to radiological department as a high risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective, cross-sectional study included 327 consecutive patients (mean age: 60 years, age range: 30-90 years) who underwent breast MRI and tissue biopsy between 2007 and 2016. All MRI images (T1, T2, and subtraction images) were evaluated visually. The relationship of BPE with patient age, fibroglandular tissue (FGT), Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) categories, presence of breast cancer, and expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), progesterone receptor (PR), oestrogen receptor (ER), and Ki67 were analysed. Furthermore, all variables were correlated with pre- and postmenopausal status. RESULTS BPE of bilateral breast showed a weak correlation with FGT (right BPE: r=-0.14, p=0.004; left BPE: r=0.16, p=0.003), a weak negative correlation with patient age (right BPE: r=-0.14, p=0.007; left BPE: r=-0.15, p=0.006), and significant correlation with HER2 (right BPE, p=0.02), left BPE with HER2 was not significant. Among the correlations between BPE and BIRADS, only between right BPE and right BIRADS was significant (p=0.031). No clear evidence of an association between breast MRI BPE and breast cancer in premenopausal and postmenopausal status was observed, and no difference was found between the right and left breasts. CONCLUSIONS The results of the present study showed no significant correlations between BPE and breast cancer. In addition, there was no significant difference between the right and left breast. Hence, BPE of MRI may not be a reliable biomarker of breast cancer development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Sallam
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
| | - L Lenga
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - C Solbach
- Department Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - S Becker
- Department Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - T J Vogl
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Acciavatti RJ, Lee SH, Reig B, Moy L, Conant EF, Kontos D, Moon WK. Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities. Radiology 2023; 306:e222575. [PMID: 36749212 PMCID: PMC9968778 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. In digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density is assessed visually using the four-category scale developed by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition as of November 2022). Epidemiologically based risk models, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model (version 8), demonstrate superior modeling performance when mammographic density is incorporated. Beyond just density, a separate mammographic measure of breast cancer risk is parenchymal textural complexity. With advancements in radiomics and deep learning, mammographic textural patterns can be assessed quantitatively and incorporated into risk models. Other supplemental screening modalities, such as breast US and MRI, offer independent risk measures complementary to those derived from mammography. Breast US allows the two components of fibroglandular tissue (stromal and glandular) to be visualized separately in a manner that is not possible with mammography. A higher glandular component at screening breast US is associated with higher risk. With MRI, a higher background parenchymal enhancement of the fibroglandular tissue has also emerged as an imaging marker for risk assessment. Imaging markers observed at mammography, US, and MRI are powerful tools in refining breast cancer risk prediction, beyond mammographic density alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Beatriu Reig
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400
Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (R.J.A., E.F.C., D.K.); Department of
Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (S.H.L.,
W.K.M.); and Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (B.R.,
L.M.)
| | - Linda Moy
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400
Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (R.J.A., E.F.C., D.K.); Department of
Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (S.H.L.,
W.K.M.); and Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (B.R.,
L.M.)
| | - Emily F. Conant
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400
Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (R.J.A., E.F.C., D.K.); Department of
Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea (S.H.L.,
W.K.M.); and Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (B.R.,
L.M.)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Song D, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee J, Park GE. The Frequency and Causes of Not-Detected Breast Malignancy in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:2575. [PMID: 36359419 PMCID: PMC9689718 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/22/2022] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Breast MR is the most sensitive imaging modality, but there are cases of malignant tumors that are not detected in MR. This study evaluated the frequency and main causes of malignant breast lesions not detected in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR. A total of 1707 cases of preoperative breast MR performed between 2020 and 2021 were included. Three radiologists individually reviewed the DCE MRs and found not-detected malignancy cases in the MRs. The final cases were decided through consensus. For the selected cases, images other than DCE MRIs, such as mammography, ultrasounds, diffusion-weighted MRs, and, if possible, contrast-enhanced chest CTs, were analyzed. In the final sample, 12 cases were not detected in DCE MR, and the frequency was 0.7% (12/1707). Six cases were not detected due to known non-enhancing histologic features. In four cases, tumors were located in the breast periphery and showed no enhancement in MR. In the remaining two cases, malignant lesions were not identified due to underlying marked levels of BPE. The frequency of not-detected malignancy in DCE MR is rare. Knowing the causes of each case and correlating it with other imaging modalities could be helpful in the diagnosis of breast malignancy in DCE MR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Donghun Song
- Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Bucheon Saint Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon-si 14647, Korea
| | - Bong Joo Kang
- Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Sung Hun Kim
- Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Jeongmin Lee
- Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| | - Ga Eun Park
- Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul Saint Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Eskreis-Winkler S, Sutton EJ, D’Alessio D, Gallagher K, Saphier N, Stember J, Martinez DF, Morris EA, Pinker K. Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement Categorization Using Deep Learning: Outperforming the Radiologist. J Magn Reson Imaging 2022; 56:1068-1076. [PMID: 35167152 PMCID: PMC9376189 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Revised: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is assessed on breast MRI reports as mandated by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) but is prone to inter and intrareader variation. Semiautomated and fully automated BPE assessment tools have been developed but none has surpassed radiologist BPE designations. PURPOSE To develop a deep learning model for automated BPE classification and to compare its performance with current standard-of-care radiology report BPE designations. STUDY TYPE Retrospective. POPULATION Consecutive high-risk patients (i.e. >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) who underwent contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI from October 2013 to January 2019. The study included 5224 breast MRIs, divided into 3998 training, 444 validation, and 782 testing exams. On radiology reports, 1286 exams were categorized as high BPE (i.e., marked or moderate) and 3938 as low BPE (i.e., mild or minimal). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE A 1.5 T or 3 T system; one precontrast and three postcontrast phases of fat-saturated T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. ASSESSMENT Breast MRIs were used to develop two deep learning models (Slab artificial intelligence (AI); maximum intensity projection [MIP] AI) for BPE categorization using radiology report BPE labels. Models were tested on a heldout test sets using radiology report BPE and three-reader averaged consensus as the reference standards. STATISTICAL TESTS Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Associations between high BPE and BI-RADS assessments were evaluated using McNemar's chi-square test (α* = 0.025). RESULTS The Slab AI model significantly outperformed the MIP AI model across the full test set (area under the curve of 0.84 vs. 0.79) using the radiology report reference standard. Using three-reader consensus BPE labels reference standard, our AI model significantly outperformed radiology report BPE labels. Finally, the AI model was significantly more likely than the radiologist to assign "high BPE" to suspicious breast MRIs and significantly less likely than the radiologist to assign "high BPE" to negative breast MRIs. DATA CONCLUSION Fully automated BPE assessments for breast MRIs could be more accurate than BPE assessments from radiology reports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Eskreis-Winkler
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Elizabeth J. Sutton
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Donna D’Alessio
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Katherine Gallagher
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Nicole Saphier
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Joseph Stember
- Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Danny F Martinez
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | | | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Armani M, Carton M, Tardivon A. Lésions mammaires ACR 3 en IRM chez des femmes à très haut risque de cancer du sein : analyse rétrospective sur trois ans. IMAGERIE DE LA FEMME 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.femme.2022.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
14
|
Brooks JD, Christensen RAG, Sung JS, Pike MC, Orlow I, Bernstein JL, Morris EA. MRI background parenchymal enhancement, breast density and breast cancer risk factors: A cross-sectional study in pre- and post-menopausal women. NPJ Breast Cancer 2022; 8:97. [PMID: 36008488 PMCID: PMC9411561 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-022-00458-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast tissue enhances on contrast MRI and is called background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Having high BPE has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. We examined the relationship between BPE and the amount of fibroglandular tissue on MRI (MRI-FGT) and breast cancer risk factors. This was a cross-sectional study of 415 women without breast cancer undergoing contrast-enhanced breast MRI at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All women completed a questionnaire assessing exposures at the time of MRI. Prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) describing the relationship between breast cancer risk factors and BPE and MRI-FGT were generated using modified Poisson regression. In multivariable-adjusted models a positive association between body mass index (BMI) and BPE was observed, with a 5-unit increase in BMI associated with a 14% and 44% increase in prevalence of high BPE in pre- and post-menopausal women, respectively. Conversely, a strong inverse relationship between BMI and MRI-FGT was observed in both pre- (PR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57, 0.76) and post-menopausal (PR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.56, 0.78) women. Use of preventive medication (e.g., tamoxifen) was associated with having low BPE, while no association was observed for MRI-FGT. BPE is an imaging marker available from standard contrast-enhanced MRI, that is influenced by endogenous and exogenous hormonal exposures in both pre- and post-menopausal women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer D Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | | | - Janice S Sung
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Malcolm C Pike
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Irene Orlow
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jonine L Bernstein
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Morris
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Radiology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Grubstein A, Rapson Y, Manor M, Yerushalmi R, Gavrieli S, Tamir S, Meshulam S, Atar E, Stemmer SM, Shochat T, Allweis TM. MRI background parenchymal enhancement in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma: Endocrine hormonal treatment effect. Breast Dis 2022; 41:317-323. [PMID: 35786645 DOI: 10.3233/bd-220003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES High background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) levels and asymmetric distribution could cause diagnostic uncertainty due to morphological similarity to breast cancer, especially invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). We investigated BPE in ILC patients, its association with the tumor hormonal profile, and the effect of endocrine treatment (ET). METHODS The analysis included all MRI examinations performed at our institution between 2010 and 2019 for ILC-diagnosed patients. Baseline study and the first follow-up study were reviewed. Digital medical records were reviewed to retrieve demographics/pathology results/treatment information. BPE and fibroglandular tissue were assessed qualitatively on the contralateral breast according to the criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). RESULTS The study included 129 patients. Most (91%) had pure ILC. All received ET; 12% also received chemotherapy; 90% had surgery first; 70% by breast conservation. On the baseline MRI, 70% had mild or moderate BPE; whereas, on the follow-up study, the majority (59%) had minimal BPE. Most BPE reductions were by 2 degrees. In the baseline study, additional biopsies were required in 59% of cases, and in 17%, a short-term follow-up was recommended. In the follow-up study, biopsies were recommended in 10%, and a short-term follow-up was requested in 16%. A correlation between progesterone receptor intensity index and baseline BPE level was observed (r = 0.3, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION ILC patients usually exhibit high BPE. ET decreases BPE, and therefore may decrease false-positive interpretations. Additional research is needed to explore whether study can be performed on ET without compromising sensitivity. KEY POINTS ∙ High background parenchymal enhancement levels reduces breast MRI sensitivity, yielding high false positive rates especially when reporting cases of invasive lobular carcinoma [ILC].∙Treatment of ILC with endocrine therapy reduces background parenchymal enhancement and thus could decrease these false-positive interpretations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahuva Grubstein
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yael Rapson
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Moran Manor
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Rinat Yerushalmi
- Oncology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Shlomo Gavrieli
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Shlomit Tamir
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Sagit Meshulam
- Plastic surgery Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Eli Atar
- Radiology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Salomon M Stemmer
- Oncology Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Tzippy Shochat
- Statistical Department, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson, Petah Tikva affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Tanir M Allweis
- Surgery Department, Hadassah Medical Center, Affiliated to Hadassah Medical School, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Mathelin C, Barranger E, Boisserie-Lacroix M, Boutet G, Brousse S, Chabbert-Buffet N, Coutant C, Daraï E, Delpech Y, Duraes M, Espié M, Fornecker L, Golfier F, Grosclaude P, Hamy AS, Kermarrec E, Lavoué V, Lodi M, Luporsi É, Maugard CM, Molière S, Seror JY, Taris N, Uzan C, Vaysse C, Fritel X. [Non-genetic indications for risk reducing mastectomies: Guidelines of the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF)]. GYNECOLOGIE, OBSTETRIQUE, FERTILITE & SENOLOGIE 2022; 50:107-120. [PMID: 34920167 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2021.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the value of performing a risk-reducting mastectomy (RRM) in the absence of a deleterious variant of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, in 4 clinical situations at risk of breast cancer. DESIGN The CNGOF Commission of Senology, composed of 26 experts, developed these recommendations. A policy of declaration and monitoring of links of interest was applied throughout the process of making the recommendations. Similarly, the development of these recommendations did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product. The Commission of Senology adhered to the AGREE II (Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare) criteria and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. The potential drawbacks of making recommendations in the presence of poor quality or insufficient evidence were highlighted. METHODS The Commission of Senology considered 8 questions on 4 topics, focusing on histological, familial (no identified genetic abnormality), radiological (of unrecognized cancer), and radiation (history of Hodgkin's disease) risk. For each situation, it was determined whether performing RRM compared with surveillance would decrease the risk of developing breast cancer and/or increase survival. RESULTS The Commission of Senology synthesis and application of the GRADE method resulted in 11 recommendations, 6 with a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and 5 with a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). CONCLUSION There was significant agreement among the Commission of Senology members on recommendations to improve practice for performing or not performing RRM in the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carole Mathelin
- CHRU, avenue Molière, 67200 Strasbourg, France; ICANS, 17, rue Albert-Calmette, 67033 Strasbourg cedex, France.
| | | | | | - Gérard Boutet
- AGREGA, service de chirurgie gynécologique et médecine de la reproduction, centre Aliénor d'Aquitaine, centre hospitalier universitaire de Bordeaux, groupe hospitalier Pellegrin, place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
| | - Susie Brousse
- CHU de Rennes, 2, rue Henri-le-Guilloux, 35033 Rennes cedex 9, France.
| | | | - Charles Coutant
- Département d'oncologie chirurgicale, centre Georges-François-Leclerc, 1, rue du Pr-Marion, 21079 Dijon cedex, France.
| | - Emile Daraï
- Hôpital Tenon, service de gynécologie-obstétrique, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France.
| | - Yann Delpech
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 33, avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice, France.
| | - Martha Duraes
- CHU de Montpellier, 191, avenue du Doyen-Giraud, 34295 Montpellier cedex, France.
| | - Marc Espié
- Hôpital Saint-Louis, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France.
| | - Luc Fornecker
- Département d'onco-hématologie, ICANS, 17, rue Albert-Calmette, 67033 Strasbourg cedex, France.
| | - François Golfier
- Centre hospitalier Lyon Sud, bâtiment 3B, 165, chemin du Grand-Revoyet, 69495 Pierre-Bénite, France.
| | | | | | - Edith Kermarrec
- Hôpital Tenon, service de radiologie, 4, rue de la Chine, 75020 Paris, France.
| | - Vincent Lavoué
- CHU, service de gynécologie, 16, boulevard de Bulgarie, 35200 Rennes, France.
| | | | - Élisabeth Luporsi
- Oncologie médicale et oncogénétique, CHR Metz-Thionville, hôpital de Mercy, 1, allée du Château, 57085 Metz, France.
| | - Christine M Maugard
- Service de génétique oncologique clinique, unité de génétique oncologique moléculaire, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 1, avenue Molière, 67200 Strasbourg, France.
| | | | | | - Nicolas Taris
- Oncogénétique, ICANS, 17, rue Albert-Calmette, 67033 Strasbourg, France.
| | - Catherine Uzan
- Hôpital Pitié-Salpetrière, 47, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France.
| | - Charlotte Vaysse
- Service de chirurgie oncologique, CHU Toulouse, institut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole, 1, avenue Irène-Joliot-Curie, 31059 Toulouse, France.
| | - Xavier Fritel
- Centre hospitalo-universitaire de Poitiers, 2, rue de la Milétrie, 86021 Poitiers, France.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bauer E, Levy MS, Domachevsky L, Anaby D, Nissan N. Background parenchymal enhancement and uptake as breast cancer imaging biomarkers: A state-of-the-art review. Clin Imaging 2021; 83:41-50. [PMID: 34953310 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.11.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Revised: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Within the past decade, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and background parenchymal uptake (BPU) have emerged as novel imaging-derived biomarkers in the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of breast cancer. Growing evidence supports the role of breast parenchyma vascularity and metabolic activity as probable risk factors for breast cancer development. Furthermore, in the presence of a newly-diagnosed breast cancer, added clinically-relevant data was surprisingly found in the respective imaging properties of the non-affected contralateral breast. Evaluation of the contralateral BPE and BPU have been found to be especially instrumental in predicting the prognosis of a patient with breast cancer and even anticipating their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Simultaneously, further research has found a link between these two biomarkers, even though they represent different physical properties. The aim of this review is to provide an up to date summary of the current clinical applications of BPE and BPU as breast cancer imaging biomarkers with the hope that it propels their further usage in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ethan Bauer
- Department of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
| | - Miri Sklair Levy
- Department of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
| | - Liran Domachevsky
- Department of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
| | - Debbie Anaby
- Department of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
| | - Noam Nissan
- Department of Radiology, Sheba Medical Center, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang C, Chen X, Luo H, Liu Y, Meng R, Wang M, Liu S, Xu G, Ren J, Zhou P. Development and Internal Validation of a Preoperative Prediction Model for Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Breast Cancer: Combining Radiomics Signature and Clinical Factors. Front Oncol 2021; 11:754843. [PMID: 34820327 PMCID: PMC8606782 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.754843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To develop and internally validate a nomogram combining radiomics signature of primary tumor and fibroglandular tissue (FGT) based on pharmacokinetic dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and clinical factors for preoperative prediction of sentinel lymph node (SLN) status in breast cancer patients. Methods This study retrospectively enrolled 186 breast cancer patients who underwent pretreatment pharmacokinetic DCE-MRI with positive (n = 93) and negative (n = 93) SLN. Logistic regression models and radiomics signatures of tumor and FGT were constructed after feature extraction and selection. The radiomics signatures were further combined with independent predictors of clinical factors for constructing a combined model. Prediction performance was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC), calibration, and decision curve analysis. The areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of models were corrected by 1,000-times bootstrapping method and compared by Delong's test. The added value of each independent model or their combinations was also assessed by net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) indices. This report referred to the "Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis" (TRIPOD) statement. Results The AUCs of the tumor radiomic model (eight features) and the FGT radiomic model (three features) were 0.783 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717-0.849) and 0.680 (95% CI, 0.604-0.757), respectively. A higher AUC of 0.799 (95% CI, 0.737-0.862) was obtained by combining tumor and FGT radiomics signatures. By further combining tumor and FGT radiomics signatures with progesterone receptor (PR) status, a nomogram was developed and showed better discriminative ability for SLN status [AUC 0.839 (95% CI, 0.783-0.895)]. The IDI and NRI indices also showed significant improvement when combining tumor, FGT, and PR compared with each independent model or a combination of any two of them (all p < 0.05). Conclusion FGT and clinical factors improved the prediction performance of SLN status in breast cancer. A nomogram integrating the DCE-MRI radiomics signature of tumor and FGT and PR expression achieved good performance for the prediction of SLN status, which provides a potential biomarker for clinical treatment decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunhua Wang
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Xiaoyu Chen
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Hongbing Luo
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Yuanyuan Liu
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Ruirui Meng
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Min Wang
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Siyun Liu
- Pharmaceutical Diagnostics, General Electric (GE) Company (Healthcare), Beijing, China
| | - Guohui Xu
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Jing Ren
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| | - Peng Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Imbriaco M. Reducing False-Positive Screening MRI Rates in Women with Extremely Dense Breasts. Radiology 2021; 301:293-294. [PMID: 34402671 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021211547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Massimo Imbriaco
- From the Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
den Dekker BM, Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Veldhuis WB, van Diest PJ, Duvivier KM, Lobbes MBI, Loo CE, Mann RM, Monninkhof EM, Veltman J, Pijnappel RM, van Gils CH. Reducing False-Positive Screening MRI Rate in Women with Extremely Dense Breasts Using Prediction Models Based on Data from the DENSE Trial. Radiology 2021; 301:283-292. [PMID: 34402665 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021210325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Background High breast density increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammographic sensitivity. Supplemental MRI screening improves cancer detection but increases the number of false-positive screenings. Thus, methods to distinguish true-positive MRI screening results from false-positive ones are needed. Purpose To build prediction models based on clinical characteristics and MRI findings to reduce the rate of false-positive screening MRI findings in women with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods Clinical characteristics and MRI findings in Dutch breast cancer screening participants (age range, 50-75 years) with positive first-round MRI screening results (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, or 5) after a normal screening mammography with extremely dense breasts (Volpara density category 4) were prospectively collected within the randomized controlled Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial from December 2011 through November 2015. In this secondary analysis, prediction models were built using multivariable logistic regression analysis to distinguish true-positive MRI screening findings from false-positive ones. Results Among 454 women (median age, 52 years; interquartile range, 50-57 years) with a positive MRI result in a first supplemental MRI screening round, 79 were diagnosed with breast cancer (true-positive findings), and 375 had false-positive MRI results. The full prediction model (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.92), based on all collected clinical characteristics and MRI findings, could have prevented 45.5% (95% CI: 39.6, 51.5) of false-positive recalls and 21.3% (95% CI: 15.7, 28.3) of benign biopsies without missing any cancers. The model solely based on readily available MRI findings and age had a comparable performance (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.88; P = .15) and could have prevented 35.5% (95% CI: 30.4, 41.1) of false-positive MRI screening results and 13.0% (95% CI: 8.8, 18.6) of benign biopsies. Conclusion Prediction models based on clinical characteristics and MRI findings may be useful to reduce the false-positive first-round screening MRI rate and benign biopsy rate in women with extremely dense breasts. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01315015 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Imbriaco in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bianca M den Dekker
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Marije F Bakker
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Stéphanie V de Lange
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Wouter B Veldhuis
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Paul J van Diest
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Katya M Duvivier
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Claudette E Loo
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Ritse M Mann
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Evelyn M Monninkhof
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Ruud M Pijnappel
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | - Carla H van Gils
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| | -
- From the Department of Radiology (B.M.d.D., S.V.d.L., W.B.V., R.M.P.), Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (M.F.B., S.V.d.L., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, and Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (C.E.L.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Dutch Expert Center for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.)
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Vong S, Ronco AJ, Najafpour E, Aminololama-Shakeri S. Screening Breast MRI and the Science of Premenopausal Background Parenchymal Enhancement. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2021; 3:407-415. [PMID: 38424792 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbab045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2021] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
The significance of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on screening and diagnostic breast MRI continues to be elucidated. Background parenchymal enhancement was initially deemed probably benign and followed or thought of as an artifact degrading the accuracy of breast cancer detection on breast MRI examinations. Subsequent research has focused on understanding the role of BPE regarding screening breast MRI. Today, there is growing evidence that a myriad of factors affect BPE, which in turn may influence patient outcomes. Additionally, BPE could represent an important risk factor for the future development of breast cancer. This article aims to describe the most up-to-date research on BPE as it relates to screening breast MRI in premenopausal women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Vong
- University of California Davis, Department of Radiology, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Anthony J Ronco
- University of California Davis, Department of Radiology, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Elham Najafpour
- University of California Davis, Department of Radiology, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Hellgren R, Saracco A, Strand F, Eriksson M, Sundbom A, Hall P, Dickman PW. The association between breast cancer risk factors and background parenchymal enhancement at dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Acta Radiol 2020; 61:1600-1607. [PMID: 32216451 PMCID: PMC7720360 DOI: 10.1177/0284185120911583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
Background Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) of normal tissue at breast magnetic resonance imaging is suggested to be an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Its association with established risk factors for breast cancer is not fully investigated. Purpose To study the association between BPE and risk factors for breast cancer in a healthy, non-high-risk screening population. Material and Methods We measured BPE and mammographic density and used data from self-reported questionnaires in 214 healthy women aged 43–74 years. We estimated odds ratios for the univariable association between BPE and risk factors. We then fitted an adjusted model using logistic regression to evaluate associations between BPE (high vs. low) and risk factors, including mammographic breast density. Results The majority of women had low BPE (84%). In a multivariable model, we found statistically significant associations between BPE and age (P = 0.002) and BMI (P = 0.03). We did find a significant association between systemic progesterone medication and BPE, but due to small numbers, the results should be interpreted with caution. The adjusted odds ratio for high BPE was 3.1 among women with density D (compared to B) and 2.1 for density C (compared to B). However, the association between high BPE and density was not statistically significant. We did not find statistically significant associations with any other risk factors. Conclusion Our study confirmed the known association of BPE with age and BMI. Although our results show a higher likelihood for high BPE with increasing levels of mammographic density, the association was not statistically significant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roxanna Hellgren
- Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Breast Imaging, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ariel Saracco
- Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Breast Imaging, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Fredrik Strand
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Thoracic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Mikael Eriksson
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ann Sundbom
- Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Breast Imaging, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Paul W Dickman
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
van der Velden BH, van Rijssel MJ, Lena B, Philippens ME, Loo CE, Ragusi MA, Elias SG, Sutton EJ, Morris EA, Bartels LW, Gilhuijs KG. Harmonization of Quantitative Parenchymal Enhancement in T 1 -Weighted Breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020; 52:1374-1382. [PMID: 32491246 PMCID: PMC7687185 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Revised: 05/19/2020] [Accepted: 05/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Differences in imaging parameters influence computer-extracted parenchymal enhancement measures from breast MRI. PURPOSE To investigate the effect of differences in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition parameter settings on quantitative parenchymal enhancement of the breast, and to evaluate harmonization of contrast-enhancement values with respect to flip angle and repetition time. STUDY TYPE Retrospective. PHANTOM/POPULATIONS We modeled parenchymal enhancement using simulations, a phantom, and two cohorts (N = 398 and N = 302) from independent cancer centers. SEQUENCE FIELD/STRENGTH 1.5T dynamic contrast-enhanced T1 -weighted spoiled gradient echo MRI. Vendors: Philips, Siemens, General Electric Medical Systems. ASSESSMENT We assessed harmonization of parenchymal enhancement in simulations and phantom by varying the MR parameters that influence the amount of T1 -weighting: flip angle (8°-25°) and repetition time (4-12 msec). We calculated the median and interquartile range (IQR) of the enhancement values before and after harmonization. In vivo, we assessed overlap of quantitative parenchymal enhancement in the cohorts before and after harmonization using kernel density estimations. Cohort 1 was scanned with flip angle 20° and repetition time 8 msec; cohort 2 with flip angle 10° and repetition time 6 msec. STATISTICAL TESTS Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-test of bootstrapped kernel density estimations. RESULTS Before harmonization, simulated enhancement values had a median (IQR) of 0.46 (0.34-0.49). After harmonization, the IQR was reduced: median (IQR): 0.44 (0.44-0.45). In the phantom, the IQR also decreased, median (IQR): 0.96 (0.59-1.22) before harmonization, 0.96 (0.91-1.02) after harmonization. Harmonization yielded significantly (P < 0.001) better overlap in parenchymal enhancement between the cohorts: median (IQR) was 0.46 (0.37-0.58) for cohort 1 vs. 0.37 (0.30-0.44) for cohort 2 before harmonization (57% overlap); and 0.35 (0.28-0.43) vs. .0.37 (0.30-0.44) after harmonization (85% overlap). DATA CONCLUSION The proposed practical harmonization method enables an accurate comparison between patients scanned with differences in imaging parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas H.M. van der Velden
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Michael J. van Rijssel
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Beatrice Lena
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Marielle E.P. Philippens
- Department of RadiotherapyUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Claudette E. Loo
- Department of RadiologyThe Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
| | - Max A.A. Ragusi
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd G. Elias
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary CareUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Elizabeth J. Sutton
- Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkNew YorkUSA
| | - Elizabeth A. Morris
- Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkNew YorkUSA
| | - Lambertus W. Bartels
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Kenneth G.A. Gilhuijs
- Image Sciences InstituteUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Relationship Between Breast Ultrasound Background Echotexture and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and the Effect of Hormonal Status Thereon. Ultrasound Q 2020; 36:179-191. [PMID: 32511210 DOI: 10.1097/ruq.0000000000000487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
We studied the relationship between breast ultrasound background echotexture (BET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and whether this relationship varied with hormonal status and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) on MRI. Two hundred eighty-three Korean women (52.1 years; range = 27-79 years) with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast ultrasound and MRI were retrospectively studied. Background echotexture, BPE, and FGT were classified into 4 categories, and age, menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage at MRI were recorded. Background echotexture and BPE relationship was assessed overall, and in menopausal, FGT, menstrual cycle regularity, and menstrual cycle stage subgroups. Background echotexture and BPE correlated in women overall, and menopausal, FGT, and menstrual cycle subgroups and those in the first half of the cycle (all P < 0.001). Background echotexture reflects BPE, regardless of menopausal status, menstrual cycle regularity, and FGT and may be a biomarker of breast cancer risk.
Collapse
|
25
|
Chang GH, Felson DT, Qiu S, Guermazi A, Capellini TD, Kolachalama VB. Assessment of knee pain from MR imaging using a convolutional Siamese network. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:3538-3548. [PMID: 32055951 PMCID: PMC7786238 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06658-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2019] [Revised: 01/02/2020] [Accepted: 01/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES It remains difficult to characterize the source of pain in knee joints either using radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We sought to determine if advanced machine learning methods such as deep neural networks could distinguish knees with pain from those without it and identify the structural features that are associated with knee pain. METHODS We constructed a convolutional Siamese network to associate MRI scans obtained on subjects from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) with frequent unilateral knee pain comparing the knee with frequent pain to the contralateral knee without pain. The Siamese network architecture enabled pairwise learning of information from two-dimensional (2D) sagittal intermediate-weighted turbo spin echo slices obtained from similar locations on both knees. Class activation mapping (CAM) was utilized to create saliency maps, which highlighted the regions most associated with knee pain. The MRI scans and the CAMs of each subject were reviewed by an expert radiologist to identify the presence of abnormalities within the model-predicted regions of high association. RESULTS Using 10-fold cross-validation, our model achieved an area under curve (AUC) value of 0.808. When individuals whose knee WOMAC pain scores were not discordant were excluded, model performance increased to 0.853. The radiologist review revealed that about 86% of the cases that were predicted correctly had effusion-synovitis within the regions that were most associated with pain. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates a proof of principle that deep learning can be applied to assess knee pain from MRI scans. KEY POINTS • Our article is the first to leverage a deep learning framework to associate MR images of the knee with knee pain. • We developed a convolutional Siamese network that had the ability to fuse information from multiple two-dimensional (2D) MRI slices from the knee with pain and the contralateral knee of the same individual without pain to predict unilateral knee pain. • Our model achieved an area under curve (AUC) value of 0.808. When individuals who had WOMAC pain scores that were not discordant for knees (pain discordance < 3) were excluded, model performance increased to 0.853.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gary H Chang
- Section of Computational Biomedicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 E. Concord Street, Evans 636, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | - David T Felson
- Section of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
- Centre for Epidemiology, University of Manchester and the NIHR Manchester BRC, Manchester University, NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Shangran Qiu
- Section of Computational Biomedicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 E. Concord Street, Evans 636, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | - Ali Guermazi
- Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | - Terence D Capellini
- Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, 02142, USA
| | - Vijaya B Kolachalama
- Section of Computational Biomedicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 E. Concord Street, Evans 636, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
- Whitaker Cardiovascular Institute, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
- Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science and Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
- Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Mann RM, Pinker K. Is Background Parenchymal Enhancement an Important Risk Factor for Breast Cancer Development in Women with Increased Risk? Radiology 2019; 292:562-563. [PMID: 31237810 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ritse M Mann
- From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (K.P.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (K.P.)
| | - Katja Pinker
- From the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (R.M.M.); Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (K.P.); and Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (K.P.)
| |
Collapse
|