Ultrasound screening of contralateral breast after surgery for breast cancer

Circulating tumor DNA: from discovery to clinical application in breast cancer

Breast cancer (BC) stands out as the cancer with the highest incidence of morbidity and mortality among women worldwide, and its incidence rate is currently trending upwards. Improving the efficiency of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment is crucial, as it can effectively reduce the disease burden. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) originates from the release of tumor cells and plays a pivotal role in the occurrence, development, and metastasis of breast cancer. In recent years, the widespread application of high-throughput analytical technology has made ctDNA a promising biomarker for early cancer detection, monitoring minimal residual disease, early recurrence monitoring, and predicting treatment outcomes. ctDNA-based approaches can effectively compensate for the shortcomings of traditional screening and monitoring methods, which fail to provide real-time information and prospective guidance for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. This review summarizes the applications of ctDNA in various aspects of breast cancer, including screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and follow-up. It highlights the current research status in this field and emphasizes the potential for future large-scale clinical applications of ctDNA-based approaches.

What Should We Know in Postoperative Surveillance Imaging After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery with Pellet-Type Acellular Dermal Matrix?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usual postoperative imaging findings among patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and to assess the clinical utility of mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US) in follow-ups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review of our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS with ADM was conducted with IRB approval and in HIPPA compliance. A total of 105 patients whose follow-up MG and US studies over 2years after surgery were available were included in this study. Postoperative imaging findings were analyzed based on sequential MG and US follow-ups. The clinical outcomes and pathological data were also reviewed. The diagnostic performance of MG and US for postoperative surveillance was assessed.

RESULTS

On MG, ADM presented as an oval (99/105, 94.3%), circumscribed/obscured (65/105, 61.9%), and high-density (56/105, 53.3%) mass with calcifications (54/105, 51.4%). On US, the ADM-filled cavity presented as an oval (93/105, 88.6%), circumscribed (70/105, 66.7%), heterogenous echoic (65/105, 61.9%) mass with marginal/posterior acoustic shadowing (95/105, 90.5%) on US. During the follow-up period (mean, 46.1months; range, 26-58 months), four tumor recurrences were diagnosed (4/105, 3.8%). One tumor recurrence detected on MG presented as microcalcifications (1/4, 25%), which were differentiated from benign postoperative calcifications due to their suspicious morphology and location. Two additional recurrences (2/4, 50%), which were MG-negative small masses or intraductal lesions, were detected on US. One tumor recurrence was missed on both MG+US and was detected by magnetic resonance imaging performed at clinician's request. The sensitivity and specificity of MG, US, and MG+US for postoperative surveillance were 25%, 50% and 75% and 100%, 98% and 98%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Recognition and adequate interpretation of the usual findings after oncoplastic BCS with ADM insertion are important in postoperative imaging surveillance. The sole use of MG is not sufficient for the detection of mass-type tumor recurrence due to the density of inserted ADM fillers. Therefore, the combined use of MG+US could serve as a useful postoperative surveillance tool with increased sensitivity in this population.

Imaging surveillance for the detection of ipsilateral local tumor recurrence in patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with acellular dermal matrix: abbreviated MRI versus conventional mammography and ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the usefulness of surveillance-abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) for the detection of ipsilateral local tumor recurrence (LTR) in patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) by comparing its diagnostic performance with that of mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US).

METHODS

The postoperative MG, US, and AB-MRI findings of the ipsilateral breast and pathological results of 324 patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS using ADM were reviewed. The cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) for each imaging modality were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 8 ipsilateral LTRs were diagnosed, and most cancers (87.5%) were stage 0 or 1 (median size of invasive cancer, 1.44 cm; range, 0.7-2 cm). The CDRs of MG, US, MG + US, and AB-MRI were 0.009, 0.012, 0.015, and 0.025 per woman, respectively. Three cancers were detectable on only AB-MRI, and the additional CDR of AB-MRI was 0.010. The sensitivity and specificity of MG, US, MG + US, and AB-MRI were 37.5%, 50%, 62.5%, and 100% and 99.7%, 98.4%, 98.1%, and 97.8%, respectively. The PPVs for biopsy were 75%, 44.4%, 45.5%, and 53.3%, respectively. The AUC was significantly higher for AB-MRI (0.989) than for MG alone (0.686, P = 0.0009), US alone (0.742, P = 0.009), and MG + US (0.803, P = 0.04). A total of 66.7% of cancers visible on only AB-MRI were located at the deep posterior portion of the excision cavity, which might have been missed with MG or MG + US due to masking by the ADM filler.

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI can improve the detection of ipsilateral LTR despite postoperative changes caused by ADM fillers compared to conventional MG and US. Patients who undergo BCS with ADM can be candidates for AB-MRI surveillance considering improved cancer detection and high sensitivity.

The assessment of circulating cell-free DNA as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative ssays

OBJECTIVES

This updated meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in breast cancer (BC).

CONTENT

An extensive systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Science Direct databases to retrieve all related literature. Various diagnostic estimates, including sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve, were also calculated using bivariate linear mixed models.

SUMMARY

In this meta-analysis, 57 unique articles (130 assays) on 4246 BC patients and 2,952 controls, were enrolled. For quantitative approaches, pooled SE, SP, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC were obtained as 0.80, 0.88, 6.7, 0.23, 29, and 0.91, respectively. Moreover, for qualitative approaches, pooled SE and SP for diagnostic performance were obtained as 0.36 and 0.98, respectively. In addition, PLR was 14.9 and NLR was 0.66. As well, the combined DOR was 23, and the AUC was 0.79.

OUTLOOK

Regardless of promising SE and SP, analysis of LRs suggested that quantitative assays are not robust enough neither for BC confirmation nor for its exclusion. On the other hand, qualitative assays showed satisfying performance only for confirming the diagnosis of BC, but not for its exclusion. Furthermore, qualitative cfDNA assays showed a better diagnostic performance in patients at the advanced stage of cancer, which represented no remarkable clinical significance as a biomarker for early detection.

A Brief Review on Breast Carcinoma and Deliberation on Current Non Invasive Imaging Techniques for Detection

BACKGROUND

Breast carcinoma is a life threatening disease that accounts for 25.1% of all carcinoma among women worldwide. Early detection of the disease enhances the chance for survival.

DISCUSSION

This paper presents comprehensive report on breast carcinoma disease and its modalities available for detection and diagnosis, as it delves into the screening and detection modalities with special focus placed on the non-invasive techniques and its recent advancement work done, as well as a proposal on a novel method for the application of early breast carcinoma detection.

CONCLUSION

This paper aims to serve as a foundation guidance for the reader to attain bird's eye understanding on breast carcinoma disease and its current non-invasive modalities.

Feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) screening in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer as a screening tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1880 screening AB-MRIs in 763 women with a PH of breast cancer (median age, 55 years; range, 23-89 years) between October 2015 and October 2016. The total acquisition times of AB-MRI were 8.3 min and 2.8 min with and without T2-weighted imaging, respectively. The tissue diagnosis or one-year follow-up status was used as the reference standard. The characteristics of tumor recurrences detected on AB-MRI screenings were analyzed. The cancer detection rates (CDRs) and additional CDRs for the 1st round and overall rounds of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values for recall (PPV1) and biopsy (PPV3) for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The diagnostic performance of the combination of mammography and ultrasonography was compared with that of AB-MRI by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen of a total of 21 recurrences were detected on the 1st round of AB-MRI screening: 93.3% were node-negative T1 tumors (median tumor size, 1.02 cm; range, 0.1-2 cm) or Tis; 66.7% were high-grade tumors; 8 of these 15 were mammographically and ultrasonographically occult. The CDR and additional CDR for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 0.019 and 0.010 per woman, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, PPV1 and PPV3 for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 100%, 96.0%, 14.3%, 13.8% and 58.3%, respectively. For detecting secondary cancer, AB-MRI showed a higher sensitivity and PPV than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (95.2%, 57.1% vs 47.6%, 38.5%). The area under the ROC curve was higher for AB-MRI (0.966; 95% CI: 0.951-0.978) than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (0.727; 95% CI: 0.694-0.759) (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI improved cancer detection with a high specificity, sensitivity and PPV in women with a PH of breast cancer. AB-MRI could be a useful screening tool for detecting secondary cancer considering its high diagnostic performance and short examination time.

Supplemental Breast US Screening in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study

Background There is limited research on supplemental screening breast US in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Purpose To compare the performance of supplemental screening breast US in women with and women without a PHBC by using a matched cohort. Materials and Methods Consecutive asymptomatic women who underwent radiologist-performed supplemental breast US and mammography between January 2013 and December 2013 at a tertiary referral university hospital were retrospectively identified. Inclusion criteria were negative or benign findings at mammography, follow-up data for at least 1 year, first cancer stage of 0 to II in women with a PHBC, and incidence screening in women without a PHBC. The two groups were matched 1:1 according to age and breast density. Performance measures were compared with McNemar test, generalized estimating equation, or penalized likelihood logistic regression. Results A total of 3226 women with a PHBC were matched with 3226 women without a PHBC (mean age ± standard deviation, 52 years ± 9; mammographic breast density, fatty in 603 and dense in 2623). Fourteen cancers (six screen-detected, eight interval cancers) were found in women with a PHBC and 13 cancers (12 screen-detected, one interval cancer) in women without a PHBC. Supplemental US in women with a PHBC compared with women without a PHBC showed lower sensitivity (43% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 18%, 71%; six of 14 cancers] vs 92% [95% CI: 64%, 100%; 12 of 13 cancers]; P = .03), higher interval cancer rates (2.5 [95% CI: 1.1, 4.9; eight of 3226 women] vs 0.3 [95% CI: 0, 1.7; one of 3226 women] per 1000; P = .02), and higher specificity (92.8% [95% CI: 91.9%, 93.7%; 2982 of 3212 women] vs 89.3% [95% CI: 88.2%, 90.4%; 2870 of 3213 women]; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion Supplemental US screening in women with a personal history of breast cancer had lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate but higher specificity relative to women without a personal history of breast cancer. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Lee in this issue.

Is contralateral breast ultrasound worthwhile in preoperative staging of breast cancer?

BACKGROUND

Women with invasive breast cancer are at higher risk of contralateral synchronous cancer. This study aimed at determining if contralateral breast ultrasound (CBUS) examination should be routinely performed in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of preoperative CBUS examinations performed between January 2012 and April 2015. The charts of patients presenting for biopsy of a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) 5 lesion and who had undergone a concomitant contralateral breast US examination were reviewed. Index tumor, lymph node status, American College of Radiology (ACR) breast density on mammogram, total scanning time, and results of CBUS were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 3007 patients who underwent breast biopsies during the study period, 360 patients met the inclusion criteria. Index mass size was 19 ± 10 mm. CBUS examination led to 76 biopsies, of which 12 were positive in 11 patients. Detection rate for mammographically occult contralateral invasive cancers was 3.1% (11/360). Contralateral lesion size was 13 ± 10 mm. Breast density was rated ACR C/D for nine women and ACR B for two. In the ACR C/D subgroup (82%), the contralateral cancer detection rate was 4.1%. Average additional scanning time spent required to perform CBUS examination was 3.1 ± 4.9 min. Patients diagnosed with contralateral invasive breast cancer underwent surgery and/or chemotherapy. The treatment strategy was changed in all 11 patients after the detection of a second primary cancer.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CBUS is effective and most beneficial with women presenting ACR C/D breast density. Given its impact on decreasing future morbidity, its routine use should be considered to improve quality healthcare for women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography

Purpose The aim of the current study was to characterize the risk of interval invasive second breast cancers within 5 years of primary breast cancer treatment. Methods We examined 65,084 surveillance mammograms from 18,366 women with a primary breast cancer diagnosis of unilateral ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I to III invasive breast carcinoma performed from 1996 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Interval invasive breast cancer was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral cancer diagnosed within 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Discrete-time survival models-adjusted for all covariates-were used to estimate the probability of interval invasive cancer, given the risk factors for each surveillance round, and aggregated across rounds to estimate the 5-year cumulative probability of interval invasive cancer. Results We observed 474 surveillance-detected cancers-334 invasive and 140 ductal carcinoma in situ-and 186 interval invasive cancers which yielded a cancer detection rate of 7.3 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.0) and an interval invasive cancer rate of 2.9 per 1,000 examinations (95% CI, 2.5 to 3.3). Median cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was 1.4% (interquartile range, 0.8% to 2.3%; 10th to 90th percentile range, 0.5% to 3.7%), and 15% of women had ≥ 3% 5-year interval invasive cancer risk. Cumulative 5-year interval cancer risk was highest for women with estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-negative primary breast cancer (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 3.5%), interval cancer presentation at primary diagnosis (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 2.9%), and breast conservation without radiation (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 2.4%). Conclusion Risk of interval invasive second breast cancer varies across women and is influenced by characteristics that can be measured at initial diagnosis, treatment, and imaging. Risk prediction models that evaluate the risk of cancers not detected by surveillance mammography should be developed to inform discussions of tailored surveillance.

Diagnostic performances of supplemental breast ultrasound screening in women with personal history of breast cancer

Background Supplemental breast ultrasonography (US) has been used as a surveillance imaging method in women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). However, there have been limited data regarding diagnostic performances. Purpose To evaluate diagnostic performances of supplemental breast US screening for women with PHBC and to compare with those for women without PHBC. Material and Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 12,230 supplemental US exams were performed in 12,230 women with negative mammograms: 6584 women with PHBC and 5646 women without PHBC. Cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and compared. Results Overall cancer detection rate and first-year interval cancer rate were 1.80/1000 exams and 0.91/1000 negative exams, both of which were higher in women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (2.88 vs. 0.53 per 1000, P = 0.003; 1.50 vs. 0.20 per 1000, P = 0.027). Abnormal interpretation rate was lower in the women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (9.1% vs. 12.1%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity was not different (67.9% vs. 75.0%, P = 1.000), whereas specificity and PPV₃ were higher in women with PHBC than in women without PHBC (91.2% vs. 88.0%, P < 0.001; 22.6% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.001). The majority of detected cancers in women with PHBC (78.9%, 15/19) were stage 0 or 1. Conclusion Supplemental breast US screening increases early stage second breast cancers with high specificity and PPV₃ in women with PHBC, however, high interval cancer rate in younger women with PHBC should be noted.

Detection of 14-3-3 sigma (σ) promoter methylation as a noninvasive biomarker using blood samples for breast cancer diagnosis

As a tumor suppressor gene, 14-3-3 σ has been reported to be frequently methylated in breast cancer. However, the clinical effect of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation remains to be verified. This study was performed to assess the clinicopathological significance and diagnostic value of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation in breast cancer. 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation was found to be notably higher in breast cancer than in benign lesions and normal breast tissue samples. We did not observe that 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation was linked to the age status, tumor grade, clinic stage, lymph node status, histological subtype, ER status, PR status, HER2 status, or overall survival of patients with breast cancer. The combined sensitivity, specificity, AUC (area under the curve), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and post-test probability values (if the pretest probability was 30%) of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation in blood samples of breast cancer patients vs. healthy subjects were 0.69, 0.99, 0.86, 95, 0.31, 302, and 98%, respectively. Our findings suggest that 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation may be associated with the carcinogenesis of breast cancer and that the use of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation might represent a useful blood-based biomarker for the clinical diagnosis of breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy

Importance

Younger women (aged ≤50 years) who underwent breast conservation therapy may benefit from breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening as an adjunct to mammography.

Objective

To prospectively determine the cancer yield and tumor characteristics of combined mammography with MRI or ultrasonography screening in women who underwent breast conservation therapy for breast cancers and who were 50 years or younger at initial diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted from December 1, 2010, to January 31, 2016, at 6 academic institutions. Seven hundred fifty-four women who were 50 years or younger at initial diagnosis and who had undergone breast conservation therapy for breast cancer were recruited to participate in the study. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up.

Interventions

Participants underwent 3 annual MRI screenings of the conserved and contralateral breasts in addition to mammography and ultrasonography, with independent readings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cancer detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, interval cancer rate, and characteristics of detected cancers.

Results

A total of 754 women underwent 2065 mammograms, ultrasonography, and MRI screenings. Seventeen cancers were diagnosed, and most of the detected cancers (13 of 17 [76%]) were stage 0 or stage 1. Overall cancer detection rate (8.2 vs 4.4 per 1000; P = .003) or sensitivity (100% vs 53%; P = .01) of mammography with MRI was higher than that of mammography alone. After the addition of ultrasonography, the cancer detection rate was higher than that by mammography alone (6.8 vs 4.4 per 1000; P = .03). The specificity of mammography with MRI or ultrasonography was lower than that by mammography alone (87% or 88% vs 96%; P < .001). No interval cancer was found.

Conclusions and Relevance

After breast conservation therapy in women 50 years or younger, the addition of MRI to annual mammography screening improves detection of early-stage but biologically aggressive breast cancers at acceptable specificity. Results from this study can inform patient decision making on screening methods after breast conservation therapy.

Imaging Surveillance for Survivors of Breast Cancer: Correlation between Cancer Characteristics and Method of Detection

Purpose

The aim of our study was to investigate the characteristics of primary and recurrent breast cancers and the correlation between cancer subtypes and detection modes.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2013, 147 cases of recurrent breast cancer in 137 women (mean age, 45.30±10.78 years) were identified via an annual clinical examination using radiological studies among 6,169 patients with a breast cancer history (mean follow-up period, 13.26±1.78 years). Clinical, radiological, and pathological findings including immunohistochemistry findings of primary and recurrent cancers were reviewed. The size of the tumor in primary and recurrent cancers, disease-free survival, methods of surgery, and the recurrence detection modalities were analyzed with respect to the breast cancer subtype.

Results

Ipsilateral and contralateral in-breast recurrence occurred in 105, 21 had axillary lymph node recurrence, and 21 had chest wall recurrences. The subtypes of the primary cancers were hormone receptor (HR) positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative (HR+HER2−) in 57, HER2 positive (HER2+) in 39, and triple-negative type in 51, and the recurrent cancers in each subtype showed the same type as the primary cancer in 84.3% of cases. In the in-breast recurrent cancers, the HR+HER2− cancers were most frequently detected using ultrasonography (15/43) followed by mammography (MG) (11/43). The HER2+ recurrent cancers were most commonly detected using MG (14/31, 45.2%), whereas triple-negative type recurrent cancers most commonly presented as symptomatic masses (15/31) (p=0.028).

Conclusion

Most recurrent breast cancers showed the same cancer subtype as the primary tumor, and recurrent breast cancer subtypes correlated with the detection modality. Imaging surveillance of survivors of breast cancer might be more beneficial in cases of HR+HER2− type breast cancer or HER2+ type breast cancer than in cases of triple-negative type breast cancer.

How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research

Objective

Risk‐reducing procedures can be offered to people at increased cancer risk, but many procedures can have iatrogenic effects. People therefore need to weigh risks associated with both cancer and the risk‐reduction procedure in their decisions. By reviewing relevant literature on breast cancer (BC) risk reduction, we aimed to understand how women at relatively high risk of BC perceive their risk and how their risk perceptions influence their decisions about risk reduction.

Methods

Synthesis of 15 qualitative studies obtained from systematic searches of SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, PsychINFO, and Medline electronic databases (inception‐June 2015).

Results

Women did not think about risk probabilistically. Instead, they allocated themselves to broad risk categories, typically influenced by their own or familial experiences of BC. In deciding about risk‐reduction procedures, some women reported weighing the risks and benefits, but papers did not describe how they did so. For many women, however, an overriding wish to reduce intense worry about BC led them to choose aggressive risk‐reducing procedures without such deliberation.

Conclusions

Reasoning that categorisation is a fundamental aspect of risk perception, we argue that patients can be encouraged to develop more nuanced and accurate categorisations of their own risk through their interactions with clinicians. Empirically‐based ethical reflection is required to determine whether and when it is appropriate to provide risk‐reduction procedures to alleviate worry.