Introduction of an abbreviated breast MRI service in the UK as part of the BRAID trial: practicalities, challenges, and future directions

Risk stratification in breast screening workshop

Population screening for breast cancer (BC) is currently offered in the UK for women aged 50 to 71 with the aim of reducing mortality. There is additional screening within the national programme for women identified as having a very high risk of BC. There is growing interest in further risk stratification in breast screening, which would require a whole population risk assessment and the subsequent offer of screening tailored to the individual's risk. Some women would be offered more intensive screening than others or no screening. This might provide a better balance of screening benefits and harms for each individual than the current population age-based programme alone. The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) is considering using decision-analytic and other models to evaluate different risk stratification screening strategies and identify remaining gaps in evidence. This paper reports the proceedings of a UK NSC workshop where experts in the field discussed both risk prediction models, as well as decision-analytic models providing a benefit-harm analysis/economic evaluation of risk-stratified screening programmes (see Table 1). The aim of the meeting was to present and discuss the current work of experts, including some data which had not been published at the time of the meeting, to inform the UK NSC. The workshop was not intended to present a balanced evaluation of how to deliver screening in future. Areas for further work identified included methods for comparing models to assess accuracy, the optimum risk assessment tools, the digital screening infrastructure, acceptability of stratification, choice of screening test and reducing inequalities. A move to risk stratification of the whole programme would require a careful phased introduction with continuing assessment of real-world evidence during deployment.

Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of the Breast: From Theory to Practice

The development of ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (UF-DCE) MRI has occurred in tandem with fast MRI scan techniques, particularly view-sharing and compressed sensing. Understanding the strengths of each technique and optimizing the relevant parameters are essential to their implementation. UF-DCE MRI has now shifted from research protocols to becoming a part of clinical scan protocols for breast cancer. UF-DCE MRI is expected to compensate for the low specificity of abbreviated MRI by adding kinetic information from the upslope of the time-intensity curve. Because kinetic information from UF-DCE MRI is obtained from the shape and timing of the initial upslope, various new kinetic parameters have been proposed. These parameters may be associated with receptor status or prognostic markers for breast cancer. In addition to the diagnosis of malignant lesions, more emphasis has been placed on predicting and evaluating treatment response because hyper-vascularity is linked to the aggressiveness of breast cancers. In clinical practice, it is important to note that breast lesion images obtained from UF-DCE MRI are slightly different from those obtained by conventional DCE MRI in terms of morphology. A major benefit of using UF-DCE MRI is avoidance of the marked or moderate background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) that can obscure the target enhancing lesions. BPE is less prominent in the earlier phases of UF-DCE MRI, which offers better lesion-to-noise contrast. The excellent contrast of early-enhancing vessels provides a key to understanding the detailed pathological structure of tumor-associated vessels. UF-DCE MRI is normally accompanied by a large volume of image data for which automated/artificial intelligence-based processing is expected to be useful. In this review, both the theoretical and practical aspects of UF-DCE MRI are summarized. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Role of Supplemental Breast MRI in Screening Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts at average or increased risk.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched 1995-2022. Articles were included if women received breast MRI following 2D or tomosynthesis mammography. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Analysis used independent studies from the articles. Fixed-effect meta-analytic summaries were estimated for predefined groups (PROSPERO: 230277).

RESULTS

Eighteen primary research articles (24 studies) were identified in women aged 19-87 years. Breast density was heterogeneously or extremely dense (BI-RADS C/D) in 15/18 articles and extremely dense (BI-RADS D) in 3/18 articles. Twelve of 18 articles reported on increased-risk populations. Following 21 440 negative mammographic examinations, 288/320 cancers were detected by MRI. Substantial variation was observed between studies in MRI cancer detection rate, partly associated with prevalent vs incident MRI exams (prevalent: 16.6/1000 exams, 12 studies; incident: 6.8/1000 exams, 7 studies). MRI had high sensitivity for mammographically occult cancer (20 studies with at least 1-year follow-up). In 5/18 articles with sufficient data to estimate relative MRI detection rate, approximately 2 in 3 cancers were detected by MRI (66.3%, 95% CI, 56.3%-75.5%) but not mammography. Positive predictive value was higher for more recent studies. Risk of bias was low in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental breast MRI following negative mammography in women with dense breasts has breast cancer detection rates of ~16.6/1000 at prevalent and ~6.8/1000 at incident MRI exams, considering both high and average risk settings.

Optimising the diagnostic accuracy of First post-contrAst SubtracTed breast MRI (FAST MRI) through interpretation-training: a multicentre e-learning study, mapping the learning curve of NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers using an enriched dataset

BACKGROUND

Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast cancer. This study aimed to optimise diagnostic accuracy through the adaptation of interpretation-training.

METHODS

A FAST MRI interpretation-training programme (short presentations and guided hands-on workstation teaching) was adapted to provide additional training during the assessment task (interpretation of an enriched dataset of 125 FAST MRI scans) by giving readers feedback about the true outcome of each scan immediately after each scan was interpreted (formative assessment). Reader interaction with the FAST MRI scans used developed software (RiViewer) that recorded reader opinions and reading times for each scan. The training programme was additionally adapted for remote e-learning delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset by multiple readers.

RESULTS

43 mammogram readers completed the training, 22 who interpreted breast MRI in their clinical role (Group 1) and 21 who did not (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 81-84%; 1994/2408), specificity 94% (95%CI 93-94%; 7806/8338), readers' agreement with the true outcome kappa = 0.75 (95%CI 0.74-0.77) and diagnostic odds ratio = 70.67 (95%CI 61.59-81.09). Group 1 readers showed similar sensitivity (84%) to Group 2 (82% p = 0.14), but slightly higher specificity (94% v. 93%, p = 0.001). Concordance with the ground truth increased significantly with the number of FAST MRI scans read through the formative assessment task (p = 0.002) but by differing amounts depending on whether or not a reader had previously attended FAST MRI training (interaction p = 0.02). Concordance with the ground truth was significantly associated with reading batch size (p = 0.02), tending to worsen when more than 50 scans were read per batch. Group 1 took a median of 56 seconds (range 8-47,466) to interpret each FAST MRI scan compared with 78 (14-22,830, p < 0.0001) for Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of immediate feedback to mammogram readers during the assessment test set reading task increased specificity for FAST MRI interpretation and achieved high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal reading-batch size for FAST MRI was 50 reads per batch. Trial registration (25/09/2019): ISRCTN16624917.

Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Clinical Trials Updated for 2023

There are many active or recently completed breast cancer screening and treatment trials in 2023 that have the potential to fundamentally change the way breast radiologists practice medicine. Breast cancer screening trials may provide evidence to support supplemental screening beyond mammography to include US, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast MRI. Furthermore, there are multiple efforts to support risk-adaptive screening strategies that would personalize screening modalities, frequencies, and ages of initiation. For breast cancer treatment, aims to reduce overtreatment may provide nonsurgical treatment options for women with low-risk breast cancer. Breast radiologists must be familiar with the study designs, major inclusion and exclusion criteria, and principal endpoints in order to determine when and how the study results should influence clinical care. As multidisciplinary team members, breast radiologists will have major roles in the success or failure of these trials as they transition from research to actual clinical practice.

The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK

BACKGROUND

There has been growing interest in the UK and internationally of risk-stratified breast screening whereby individualised risk assessment may inform screening frequency, starting age, screening instrument used, or even decisions not to screen. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of eight proposals for risk-stratified screening regimens compared to both the current UK screening programme and no national screening.

METHODS

A person-level microsimulation model was developed to estimate health-related quality of life, cancer survival and NHS costs over the lifetime of the female population eligible for screening in the UK.

RESULTS

Compared with both the current screening programme and no screening, risk-stratified regimens generated additional costs and QALYs, and had a larger net health benefit. The likelihood of the current screening programme being the optimal scenario was less than 1%. No screening amongst the lowest risk group, and triannual, biennial and annual screening amongst the three higher risk groups was the optimal screening strategy from those evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that risk-stratified breast cancer screening has the potential to be beneficial for women at the population level, but the net health benefit will depend on the particular risk-based strategy.

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Costing analysis to introduce a contrast-enhanced mammography service to replace an existing breast MRI service for local staging of breast cancer

AIM

To assess the cost impact of switching from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) to contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for loco-regional staging of breast cancer from a public healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CE-MRI cost was obtained from the NHS reference cost. The CESM cost was calculated using a bottom-up approach including use of the machine, pump injector, contrast medium, image storage, and time allocation for staff reporting and cannulation. The cost of upgrading existing machines to CESM or purchasing new mammographic machines was obtained via national procurement. Other costs were obtained from local pharmacy, published unit cost data, or estimated based on surveys.

RESULTS

For large health boards in Scotland (≥500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £64,069 to £81,570. For small health boards (<500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £6,453 to £23,953. The cost savings are most sensitive to the number of tests conducted per year, and whether the existing mammography machine can be upgraded to CESM or not.

CONCLUSION

Switching from CE-MRI to CESM for loco-regional staging of breast cancer is likely to be cost saving for both large and small health boards in Scotland. Further research is urgently needed to confirm the non-inferiority of CESM to CE-MRI as a locoregional staging technique. The input data of this analysis can be updated when such results become available.

Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers: a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset

BACKGROUND

Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI. The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).

METHODS

Mammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.

RESULTS

37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84-87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85-86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86-91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89-91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81-85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81-83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68-0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45-0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90-89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88-89%) and Group 2 (83-84%).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap.