Breast Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women Who Received Chest Radiotherapy for Childhood Hodgkin's Lymphoma

Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MRI: Assessment and Clinical Implications

Purpose of Review

To present recent literature regarding the assessment and clinical implications of background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI.

Recent Findings

The qualitative assessment of BPE remains variable within the literature, as well as in clinical practice. Several different quantitative approaches have been investigated in recent years, most commonly region of interest-based and segmentation-based assessments. However, quantitative assessment has not become standard in clinical practice to date. Numerous studies have demonstrated a clear association between higher BPE and future breast cancer risk. While higher BPE does not appear to significantly impact cancer detection, it may result in a higher abnormal interpretation rate. BPE is also likely a marker of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with decreases in BPE during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy correlated with pCR. In contrast, pre-treatment BPE does not appear to be predictive of pCR. The association between BPE and prognosis is less clear, with heterogeneous results in the literature.

Summary

Assessment of BPE continues to evolve, with heterogeneity in approaches to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. The level of BPE has important clinical implications, with associations with future breast cancer risk and treatment response. BPE may also be an imaging marker of prognosis, but future research is needed on this topic.

Radiation-associated breast cancers in a late-effects cohort: Long-term surveillance is essential

AIMS

Survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adulthood malignancies have an increased risk of subsequent primary malignancies, particularly after exposure to therapeutic radiation. This study aims to evaluate the mode of surveillance and surveillance compliance, incidence and mode of detection of breast cancer, breast cancer phenotype, and outcomes after radiation-associated breast cancer (RBC) in a late-effects cohort.

METHODS

Women exposed to therapeutic radiation attending the late effects service from 1st January 2000 to 20th February 2013. All invasive and in-situ cancers, benign tumors, and deaths were evaluated. The incidence of breast cancer was compared to the Australian general population. Compliance with breast surveillance recommendations, clinicopathological features, and management of breast cancers were examined.

RESULTS

The prevalence of RBC was 17.1%. Twenty-eight cases of RBC occurred in 24 women, out of 140 women exposed to chest radiation. Patients whose first attendance was ≥15 years after radiation exposure experienced the highest incidence of RBC at 23%. The incidence of breast cancer was 11.2 times the general population (P < .001). Compliance with surveillance mammography was observed in 18.4%. Breast cancers diagnosed after the first attendance to the service were more likely screen-detected (P = .002). Most were hormone receptor positive (84.0%), invasive ductal carcinomas (82.1%), and managed with mastectomy (89.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients attending a dedicated late effects service have a high burden of subsequent malignancies generally occurring after long latency. Judicious management with adherence to long-term surveillance guidelines is advocated.

Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: A comprehensive review

The degree of normal fibroglandular tissue that enhances on breast MRI, known as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), was initially described as an incidental finding that could affect interpretation performance. While BPE is now established to be a physiologic phenomenon that is affected by both endogenous and exogenous hormone levels, evidence supporting the notion that BPE frequently masks breast cancers is limited. However, compelling data have emerged to suggest BPE is an independent marker of breast cancer risk and breast cancer treatment outcomes. Specifically, multiple studies have shown that elevated BPE levels, measured qualitatively or quantitatively, are associated with a greater risk of developing breast cancer. Evidence also suggests that BPE could be a predictor of neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment response and overall breast cancer treatment outcomes. These discoveries come at a time when breast cancer screening and treatment have moved toward an increased emphasis on targeted and individualized approaches, of which the identification of imaging features that can predict cancer diagnosis and treatment response is an increasingly recognized component. Historically, researchers have primarily studied quantitative tumor imaging features in pursuit of clinically useful biomarkers. However, the need to segment less well-defined areas of normal tissue for quantitative BPE measurements presents its own unique challenges. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the optimal timing on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for BPE quantitation. This article comprehensively reviews BPE with a particular focus on its potential to increase precision approaches to breast cancer risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. It also describes areas of needed future research, such as the applicability of BPE to women at average risk, the biological underpinnings of BPE, and the standardization of BPE characterization. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:43-61.

Background parenchymal enhancement in breast magnetic resonance imaging: A review of current evidences and future trends

Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a dynamic process, which varies among women and within the same woman over time due to different factors. BPE has profound implications for women with or at risk of breast cancer. Breast radiologist should be aware of factors that could potentially influence BPE and have to be familiar with its typical appearance. Marked BPE could indeed affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI, but this shortcoming can be minimized through evaluation by dedicated radiologists, in order to correctly interpret and properly manage the additional findings. BPE shows promise as an imaging biomarker but many issues need to be addressed before it can be used either to determine screening strategy or the value of risk-reducing interventions. This review analyzes the clinical influence of BPE on breast MRI interpretation, breast cancer staging and surgical outcome and discusses current available evidences about BPE as an imaging biomarker.

Comparison between qualitative and quantitative assessment of background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI

BACKGROUND

Potential clinical implications of the level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI are increasing. Currently, BPE is typically evaluated subjectively. Tests of concordance between subjective BPE assessment and computer-assisted quantified BPE have not been reported.

PURPOSE OR HYPOTHESIS

To compare subjective radiologist assessment of BPE with objective quantified parenchymal enhancement (QPE).

STUDY TYPE

Cross-sectional observational study.

POPULATION

Between 7/24/2015 and 11/27/2015, 104 sequential patients (ages 23 - 81 years, mean 49 years) without breast cancer underwent breast MRI and were included in this study.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3T; fat suppressed axial T2, axial T1, and axial fat suppressed T1 before and after intravenous contrast.

ASSESSMENT

Four breast imagers graded BPE at 90 and 180 s after contrast injection on a 4-point scale (a-d). Fibroglandular tissue masks were generated using a phantom-validated segmentation algorithm, and were co-registered to pre- and postcontrast fat suppressed images to define the region of interest. QPE was calculated.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and kappa coefficients (k) were used to compare subjective BPE with QPE.

RESULTS

ROC analyses indicated that subjective BPE at 90 s was best predicted by quantified QPE ≤20.2 = a, 20.3-25.2 = b, 25.3-50.0 = c, >50.0 = d, and at 180 s by quantified QPE ≤ 32.2 = a, 32.3-38.3 = b, 38.4-74.5 = c, >74.5 = d. Agreement between subjective BPE and QPE was slight to fair at 90 s (k = 0.20-0.36) and 180 s (k = 0.19-0.28). At higher levels of QPE, agreement between subjective BPE and QPE significantly decreased for all four radiologists at 90 s (P ≤ 0.004) and for three of four radiologists at 180 s (P ≤ 0.004).

DATA CONCLUSION

Radiologists were less consistent with QPE as QPE increased.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1685-1691.