Supplemental screening using breast MRI in women with mammographically dense breasts

Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings.

Cancer detection rate of breast-MR in supplemental screening after negative mammography in women with dense breasts. Preliminary results of the MA-DETECT-Study after 200 participants

BACKGROUND

Due to increased cancer detection rates (CDR), breast MR (breast MRI) can reduce underdiagnosis of breast cancer compared to conventional imaging techniques, particularly in women with dense breasts. The purpose of this study is to report the additional breast cancer yield by breast MRI in women with dense breasts after receiving a negative screening mammogram.

METHODS

For this study we invited consecutive participants of the national German breast cancer Screening program with breast density categories ACR C & D and a negative mammogram to undergo additional screening by breast MRI. Endpoints were CDR and recall rates. This study reports interim results in the first 200 patients. At a power of 80% and considering an alpha error of 5%, this preliminary population size is sufficient to demonstrate a 4/1000 improvement in CDR.

RESULTS

In 200 screening participants, 8 women (40/1000, 17.4-77.3/1000) were recalled due to positive breast MRI findings. Image-guided biopsy revealed 5 cancers in 4 patients (one bilateral), comprising four invasive cancers and one case of DCIS. 3 patients revealed 4 invasive cancers presenting with ACR C breast density and one patient non-calcifying DCIS in a woman with ACR D breast density, resulting in a CDR of 20/1000 (95%-CI 5.5-50.4/1000) and a PPV of 50% (95%-CI 15.7-84.3%).

CONCLUSION

Our initial results demonstrate that supplemental screening using breast MRI in women with heterogeneously dense and very dense breasts yields an additional cancer detection rate in line with a prior randomized trial on breast MRI screening of women with extremely dense breasts. These findings are highly important as the population investigated constitutes a much higher proportion of women and yielded cancers particularly in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.

Intermodal correlation of quantitative CT-data and MRI-biomarkers derived from synchronous spectral CT-maps and breast MRI-examinations with molecular biomarkers in invasive ductal breast carcinomas

OBJECTIVE

To asses the correlation of data derived from dual-layer (DL)-CT material-maps and breast MRI data with molecular biomarkers in invasive breast carcinomas.

METHODS

All patients at the University Breast Cancer Center who underwent a clinically indicated DLCT-scan and a breast MRI for staging of invasive ductal breast cancer from 2016 to 2020 were prospectively included. Iodine concentration-maps, and Zeffective-maps were reconstructed from the CT-datasets. T1w- and T2w-signal intensities, ADC and the clustered shapes of the dynamic-curves (washout, plateau, persistent) were derived from the MRI-datasets. ROI-based evaluations of the cancers and the reference "musculature" were performed semi-automatically in identical anatomical positions using dedicated evaluation software. Statistical analysis was essentially descriptive using Spearmańs rank correlation and (multivariable) partial correlation.

RESULTS

The signal intensities measured in the 3rd phase of the contrast dynamics correlated at an intermediate level of significance with the iodine content and the Zeffective-values derived from the breast target lesions (Spearmańs rank correlation-coefficient r = 0.237/0.236, p = 0.002/0.003). The bivariate and the multivariate analyses displayed correlations of an intermediate significance level of the iodine content and the Zeff-values measured in the breast target lesions with immunhistochemical subtyping (r = 0.211-0.243, p = 0.002-0.009, respectively). The Zeff-values showed the strongest correlations when normalized to the values measured in the musculature and in the aorta (r = -0.237 to -0.305, r=<0.001-0.003). The MRI-assessments showed correlations of intermediate to high significance and low to intermediate significance between the ratios of the T2w-signal intensities and the trends of the dynamic curves measured in the breast target lesions and in musculature and immunohistochemical cancer subtyping, respectively (T2w: r = 0.232-0.249, p = 0.003/0.002; dynamics: r = -0.322/-0.245, p=<0.001/0.002). The ratios of the clustered trends of the dynamic curves measured in the breast target lesions and in musculature correlated with tumor grading on intermediate significance level (r = -0.213 and -0.194, p = 0.007/0.016) and with Ki-67 on a low significance level (bivariate analysis: r = -0.160, p = 0.040). There was only a weak correlation between the ADC-values measured in the breast target lesions and HER2-expression (bivariate ansalysis: r = 0.191, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results indicate that evaluation of perfusion based DLCT-data and MRI-biomarkers show correlations with the immunhistochemical subtyping of invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Further clinical research is warranted in order to validate the value of the results and define clinical situations in which the use of the described DLCT-biomaker and MRI biomarkers may be helpful in clinical patient care.

Clinical evaluation of cylindrical regional suppression in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: An intra-individual comparison study on image quality and lesion conspicuity

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of a cylindrical regional-suppression technique (CREST) on image quality and lesion conspicuity in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast.

METHOD

This was a comparative study of 67 women with 44 lesions who underwent breast DCE-MRI with CREST (CREST-DCE) and had a previous DCE-MRI without CREST (conv-DCE) available. Two radiologists assessed image quality parameters and lesion conspicuity using five-point Likert scales. In an intra-individual comparison, the effects of CREST on image quality (strong degradation to strong improvement) were assessed. Moreover, both radiologists identified the post-contrast phase, which benefited the most from using CREST in direct comparison. The statistical analysis included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

Cardiac motion-rated artefacts were significantly reduced in CREST-DCE compared to conv-DCE (3.6 ± 1.2 [CREST-DCE] vs 2.1 ± 0.8 [conv-DCE], p < 0.001). At the axilla, the visualisation of anatomical structures (3.9 ± 1.0 vs 2.3 ± 1.2, p < 0.001) and the skin contour (4.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.0 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) were significantly improved in CREST-DCE, whereas ghosting artefacts were significantly less pronounced (3.8 ± 1.1 vs 2.4 ± 1.0, p < 0.001). The parasternal region was similarly assessable using both techniques (4.3 ± 1.1 vs 4.2 ± 1.2, p = 0.47). In direct comparison, CREST-DCE images were classified as "improved" in 54/67 and "equivalent" in 13/67 exams. The effects of CREST were found to be most pronounced in the very early post-contrast phase (32/67). The lesion conspicuity was rated similar for CREST and conv-DCE (4.7 ± 0.7 vs 4.8 ± 0.2, p = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

CREST appears to be an effective tool to reduce cardiac motion-related artefacts and, therefore, may improve image quality in breast DCE-MRI without impairing lesion conspicuity.

Breast MRI: does a clinical decision algorithm outweigh reader experience?

Objectives

Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (MRIb) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The Kaiser score (KS) is a clinical decision algorithm, which formalizes and guides diagnosis in breast MRI and is expected to compensate for lesser reader experience. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of untrained residents using the KS compared to off-site radiologists experienced in breast imaging using only MR BI-RADS.

Methods

Three off-site, board-certified radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, interpreted MRIb according to the MR BI-RADS scale. The same studies were read by three residents in radiology without prior training in breast imaging using the KS. All readers were blinded to clinical information. Histology was used as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was conducted by comparing the AUC of the ROC curves.

Results

A total of 80 women (median age 52 years) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant) were included. The individual within-group performance of the three expert readers (AUC 0.723–0.742) as well as the three residents was equal (AUC 0.842–0.928), p > 0.05, respectively. But, the rating of each resident using the KS significantly outperformed the experts’ ratings using the MR BI-RADS scale (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

The KS helped residents to achieve better results in reaching correct diagnoses than experienced radiologists empirically assigning MR BI-RADS categories in a clinical “problem solving MRI” setting. These results support that reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience.

Key Points

• Reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience in a clinical “problem solving MRI” setting.

• The Kaiser score, which provides a clinical decision algorithm for structured reporting, helps residents to reach an expert level in breast MRI reporting and to even outperform experienced radiologists using MR BI-RADS without further formal guidance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-09015-8.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a more accessible alternative to contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in breast imaging, but a summary comparison of published studies is lacking. Purpose To directly compare the performance of CEM and CE-MRI regarding sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value in detecting breast cancer, involving all publicly available studies in the English language. Materials and Methods Two readers extracted characteristics of studies investigating the comparative diagnostic performance of CEM and CE-MRI in detecting breast cancer. Studies published until April 2021 were eligible. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random effects models. A Fagan nomogram was used to identify the maximum pretest probability at which posttest probabilities of a negative CEM or CE-MRI examination were in line with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 to a BI-RADS category 3 result. I ² statistics, Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias, and meta-regression were used. Results Seven studies investigating 1137 lesions (654 malignant, 483 benign) with an average cancer prevalence of 65.3% (range: 47.3%-82.2%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = .57). While the positive likelihood ratio was equal at a value of 3.1 for CE-MRI and 3.6 for CEM, the negative likelihood ratio of CE-MRI (0.04) was lower than that with CEM (0.12). CE-MRI had higher sensitivity for breast cancer than CEM (97% [95% CI: 86, 99] vs 91% [95% CI: 77, 97], respectively; P < .001) but lower specificity (69% [95% CI: 46, 85] vs 74% [95% CI: 52, 89]; P = .09). A Fagan nomogram demonstrated that the maximum pretest probability at which both tests could rule out breast cancer was 33% for CE-MRI and 14% for CEM. Furthermore, iodine concentration was positively associated with CEM sensitivity and negatively associated with its specificity (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced MRI had superior sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios with higher pretest probabilities to rule out malignancy compared with contrast-enhanced mammography. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann and Veldhuis in this issue.

Evidence-Based and Structured Diagnosis in Breast MRI using the Kaiser Score

BACKGROUND

 Breast MRI is the most sensitive method for the detection of breast cancer and is an integral part of modern breast imaging. On the other hand, interpretation of breast MRI exams is considered challenging due to the complexity of the available information. Clinical decision rules that combine diagnostic criteria in an algorithm can help the radiologist to read breast MRI by supporting objective and largely experience-independent diagnosis.

METHOD

 Narrative review. In this article, the Kaiser Score (KS) as a clinical decision rule for breast MRI is introduced, its diagnostic criteria are defined, and strategies for clinical decision making using the KS are explained and discussed.

RESULTS

 The KS is based on machine learning and has been independently validated by international research. It is largely independent of the examination technique that is used. It allows objective differentiation between benign and malignant contrast-enhancing breast MRI findings using diagnostic BI-RADS criteria taken from T2w and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1w images. A flowchart guides the reader in up to three steps to determine a score corresponding to the probability of malignancy that can be used to assign a BI-RADS category. Individual decision making takes the clinical context into account and is illustrated by typical scenarios.

KEY POINTS

· The KS as an evidence-based decision rule to objectively distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions is based on information contained in T2w und dynamic contrast-enhanced T1w sequences and is largely independent of specific examination protocols.. · The KS diagnostic criteria are in line with the MRI BI-RADS lexicon. We focused on defining a default category to be applied in the case of equivocal imaging criteria.. · The KS reflects increasing probabilities of malignancy and, together with the clinical context, assists individual decision making..

CITATION FORMAT

· Baltzer PA, Krug KB, Dietzel M. Evidence-Based and Structured Diagnosis in Breast MRI using the Kaiser Score. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1829-5985.