1
|
Enogieru IE, Comstock CE, Grimm LJ. Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Clinical Trials Updated for 2023. JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING 2024; 6:14-22. [PMID: 38243862 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbad089] [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: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Imarhia E Enogieru
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - Lars J Grimm
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jones LI, Marshall A, Elangovan P, Geach R, McKeown-Keegan S, Vinnicombe S, Harding SA, Taylor-Phillips S, Halling-Brown M, Foy C, O’Flynn E, Ghiasvand H, Hulme C, Dunn JA. Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers: a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset. Breast Cancer Res 2022; 24:55. [PMID: 35907862 PMCID: PMC9338668 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-022-01549-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Accepted: 06/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lyn I. Jones
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB UK
| | - Andrea Marshall
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
| | - Premkumar Elangovan
- Scientific Computing, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX UK
| | - Rebecca Geach
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB UK
| | - Sadie McKeown-Keegan
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB UK
| | - Sarah Vinnicombe
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, GL53 7AS UK
| | - Sam A. Harding
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB UK
| | | | - Mark Halling-Brown
- Scientific Computing, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX UK
| | - Christopher Foy
- Research Design Service South West Gloucester Office, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadon House, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, GL1 3NN UK
| | - Elizabeth O’Flynn
- St George’s University Hospitals Foundation Trust, London, SW17 0QT UK
| | - Hesam Ghiasvand
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK
| | - Claire Hulme
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK
| | - Janet A. Dunn
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
| |
Collapse
|