The mammographic breast density distribution of Finnish women with breast cancer and comparison of breast density reporting using the 4th and 5th editions of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System

Radiological features of screening-detected and interval breast cancers and subsequent survival in Eastern Finnish women

Interval breast cancers are diagnosed between scheduled screenings and differ in many respects from screening-detected cancers. Studies comparing the survival of patients with interval and screening-detected cancers have reported differing results. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological and histopathological features and growth rates of screening-detected and interval breast cancers and subsequent survival. This retrospective study included 942 female patients aged 50-69 years with breast cancers treated and followed-up at Kuopio University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2016. The screening-detected and interval cancers were classified as true, minimal-signs, missed, or occult. The radiological features were assessed on mammograms by one of two specialist breast radiologists with over 15 years of experience. A χ2 test was used to examine the association between radiological and pathological variables; an unpaired t test was used to compare the growth rates of missed and minimal-signs cancers; and the Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to examine survival after screening-detected and interval cancers. Sixty occult cancers were excluded, so a total of 882 women (mean age 60.4 ± 5.5 years) were included, in whom 581 had screening-detected cancers and 301 interval cancers. Disease-specific survival, overall survival and disease-free survival were all worse after interval cancer than after screening-detected cancer (p < 0.001), with a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. There were no statistically significant differences in survival between the subgroups of screening-detected or interval cancers. Missed interval cancers had faster growth rates (0.47% ± 0.77%/day) than missed screening-detected cancers (0.21% ± 0.11%/day). Most cancers (77.2%) occurred in low-density breasts (< 25%). The most common lesion types were masses (73.9%) and calcifications (13.4%), whereas distortions (1.8%) and asymmetries (1.7%) were the least common. Survival was worse after interval cancers than after screening-detected cancers, attributed to their more-aggressive histopathological characteristics, more nodal and distant metastases, and faster growth rates.

Anatomical breast imaging-derived parameters do not provide incremental information in prediction of nonvisualization of sentinel lymph nodes on lymphoscintigraphy

OBJECTIVE

Accurate sentinel lymph node (SLN) staging is essential for both prognosis and treatment in patients with breast cancer. However, the preoperative lymphoscintigraphy may fail to visualize the SLN. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate whether parameters derived from anatomical breast imaging can predict SLN nonvisualization on lymphoscintigraphy.

METHODS

For this retrospective study, all data of mammography, breast MRI, and lymphoscintigraphy of SLN procedures from January 2016 to April 2021 were collected and reviewed from the Amsterdam UMC database.

RESULTS

A total of 758 breast cancer patients were included in this study. SLN nonvisualization on planar lymphoscintigraphy at 2-h postinjection (pi) was 29.7% and was reduced after a second injection to 7.5% at late lymphoscintigraphy 4-h pi. Multivariable analysis showed that age ≥ 70 years ( P = 0.019; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.10-3.01), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ( P = 0.031; OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and nonpalpable tumors ( P = 0.034; OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.03-2.04) were independent predictors of SLN nonvisualization. Differences in tumor size, Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System classification, or breast density were not significantly associated with SLN nonvisualization.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that, by using a multivariable analysis, risk factors for SLN nonvisualization in breast cancer patients during preoperative lymphoscintigraphy at 2-h pi are age ≥ 70 years, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 , and nonpalpable tumors. Parameters derived from mammography or breast MRI, however, are not useful to predict SLN nonvisualization on lymphoscintigraphy.

Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Due to most states' legislation, mammographic density categorization has potentially far-reaching implications, but remains subjective based on BIRADS® guidelines. We aimed to determine 1) effect of BI-RADS® 5th edition (5th-ed) vs 4th-edition (4th-ed) guidelines on reader agreement regarding density assessment; 2) 5th-ed vs 4th-ed density distribution, and visual vs quantitative assessment agreement; 3) agreement between experienced vs less experienced readers.

METHODS

In a retrospective review, six breast imaging radiologists (BIR) (23-30 years' experience) visually assessed density of 200 screening mammograms performed September 2012-January 2013 using 5th-ed guidelines. Results were compared to 2016 data of the same readers evaluating the same mammograms using 4th-ed guidelines after a training module. 5th-ed density categorization by seven junior BIR (1-5 years' experience) was compared to eight experienced BIR. Nelson et al.'s kappas (κ_m, κ_w), Fleiss' κ_F, and Cohen's κ were calculated. Quantitative density using Volpara was compared with reader assessments.

RESULTS

Inter-reader weighted agreement using 5th-ed is moderately strong, 0.73 (κ_w, s.e. = 0.01), similar to 4th-ed, 0.71 (κ_w, s.e. = 0.03). Intra-reader Cohen's κ is 0.23-0.34, similar to 4th-ed. Binary not-dense vs dense categorization, using 5th-ed results in higher dense categorization vs 4th-ed (p < 0.001). 5th-ed density distribution results in higher numbers in categories B/C vs 4th-ed (p < 0.001). Distribution for 5th-ed does not differ based on reader experience (p = 0.09). Reader vs quantitative weighted agreement is similar (5th-ed, Cohen's κ = 0.76-0.85; 4th-ed, Cohen's κ = 0.68-0.83).

CONCLUSION

There is persistent subjectivity of visually assessed mammographic density using 5th-ed guidelines; experience does not correlate with better inter-reader agreement.