ACR Appropriateness Criteria Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women

Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify and characterize examinations in women with a personal history of breast cancer likely performed for asymptomatic surveillance.

METHODS

We included surveillance mammograms (1997-2017) in asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at age ≥18 years (1996-2016) from 103 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. We examined facility-level variability in examination indication. We modeled the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the examination level of a (1) nonscreening indication and (2) surveillance interval ≤9 months using Poisson regression with fixed effects for facility, stage, diagnosis age, surgery, examination year, and time since diagnosis.

RESULTS

Among 244,855 surveillance mammograms, 69.5% were coded with a screening indication, 12.7% short-interval follow-up, and 15.3% as evaluation of a breast problem. Within a facility, the proportion of examinations with a screening indication ranged from 6% to 100% (median 86%, interquartile range 79%-92%). Facilities varied the most for examinations in the first 5 years after diagnosis, with 39.4% of surveillance mammograms having a nonscreening indication. Within a facility, breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.60-1.68) and less time since diagnosis (1 year versus 5 years; RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.66-1.72; 3 years versus 5 years = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.18-1.23) were strongly associated with a nonscreening indication with similar results for ≤9-month surveillance interval. Screening indication and >9-month surveillance intervals were more common in more recent years.

CONCLUSION

Variability in surveillance indications across facilities in the United States supports including indications beyond screening in studies evaluating surveillance mammography effectiveness and demonstrates the need for standardization.

A genomic ruler to assess oncogenic transition between breast tumor and stroma

Background

Cancers induce gene expression alterations in stroma surrounding tumors that supports cancer progression. However, it is actually not at all known the extent of altered stromal gene expression enacted by tumors nor the extent to which altered stromal gene expression penetrates the stromal tissue. Presently, post-surgical “tumor-free” stromal tissue is determined to be cancer-free based on solely on morphological normality—a criteria that has not changed in more than 100 years despite the existence of sophisticated gene expression data to the contrary. We therefore investigated the extent to which breast tumors alter stromal gene expression in three dimensions in women undergoing mastectomy with the intent of providing a genomic determination for development of future risk of recurrence criteria, and to inform the need for adjuvant full-breast irradiation.

Methods and findings

Genome-wide gene expression changes were determined in histopathologically normal breast tissue in 33 women undergoing mastectomy for stage II and III primary invasive ductal carcinoma at serial distances in three dimensions from the tumor. Gene expression was determined by genome-wide mRNA analysis and subjected to metagene mRNA characterization. Tumor-like gene expression signatures in stroma were identified that surprisingly transitioned to a plastic, normalizing homeostatic signature with distance from tumor. Stroma closest to tumor displayed a pronounced tumor-like signature enriched in cancer-promoting pathways involved in disruption of basement membrane, cell migration and invasion, WNT signaling and angiogenesis. By 2 cm from tumor in all dimensions, stromal tissues were in transition, displaying homeostatic and tumor suppressing gene activity, while also expressing cancer supporting pathways.

Conclusions

The dynamics of gene expression in the post-tumor breast stroma likely co-determines disease outcome: reversion to normality or transition to transformation in morphologically normal tissue. Our stromal genomic signature may be important for personalizing surgical and adjuvant therapeutic decisions and risk of recurrence.

Screening women with a personal history of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on breast imaging surveillance

This work reviews the evidence on breast imaging for screening (surveillance) in women with a history of breast cancer (BC). Early detection of second BCs in these women improves their prognosis based on studies using mammography (usually with clinical examinations) for surveillance. Cohort studies have estimated that mammography surveillance has moderate sensitivity (65.4%) and good specificity (98.3%), and have shown that these women are at a higher risk of interval BC than age- and breast density-matched women without a history of BC. Studies of adjunct imaging (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging) for surveillance that have reported detection and accuracy measures have generally shown that adjunct imaging detected more second BCs than mammography and added substantially to the amount of false-positive results; however, little evidence exists regarding screening efficacy of adjunct imaging as part of routine surveillance.

Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice

Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV2 was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, >80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. © RSNA, 2017.

Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Current clinical guidelines are consistent in supporting annual mammography for women after treatment of primary breast cancer. Surveillance imaging beyond standard digital mammography, including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), breast ultrasound, and MRI, may improve outcomes. This article reviews the evidence on the performance and effectiveness of breast imaging modalities available for surveillance after treatment of sporadic unilateral primary breast cancer and identifies additional factors to be considered when selecting an imaging surveillance regimen.

CONCLUSION

Evidence review supports the use of mammography for surveillance after primary breast cancer treatment. Variability exists in guideline recommendations for surveillance initiation, interval, and cessation. DBT offers the most promise as a potential modality to replace standard digital mammography as a front-line surveillance test; a single published study to date has shown a significant decrease in recall rates compared with standard digital mammography alone. Most guidelines do not support the use of whole-breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance, and further studies are needed to define the characteristics of women who may benefit from MRI surveillance. The emerging evidence about surveillance imaging outcomes suggests that additional factors, including patient and imaging characteristics, tumor biology and gene expression profile, and choice of treatment, warrant consideration in selecting personalized posttreatment imaging surveillance regimens.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: An Opportunity for Radiologists to Demonstrate Value

In response to healthcare reform, a necessary evolution of radiology has shifted from generating volume to demonstrating value. Multidisciplinary tumor boards provide a critical opportunity for radiologists to demonstrate their value to their clinical colleagues, their patients, administrations, and society.

Assessing Strength of Evidence of Appropriate Use Criteria for Diagnostic Imaging Examinations

OBJECTIVE

For health information technology tools to fully inform evidence-based decisions, recommendations must be reliably assessed for quality and strength of evidence. We aimed to create an annotation framework for grading recommendations regarding appropriate use of diagnostic imaging examinations.

METHODS

The annotation framework was created by an expert panel (clinicians in three medical specialties, medical librarians, and biomedical scientists) who developed a process for achieving consensus in assessing recommendations, and evaluated by measuring agreement in grading the strength of evidence for 120 empirically selected recommendations using the Oxford Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of recommendations were assigned to Level 5 (expert opinion). Inter-annotator agreement was 0.70 on initial grading (κ = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.23-0.48). After systematic discussion utilizing the annotation framework, agreement increased significantly to 0.97 (κ = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.77-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel annotation framework was effective for grading the strength of evidence supporting appropriate use criteria for diagnostic imaging exams.

Value analysis of postoperative staging imaging for asymptomatic, early-stage breast cancer: implications of clinical variation on utility and cost

BACKGROUND

Routine staging imaging for early-stage breast cancer is not recommended. Despite this, there is clinical practice variation with imaging studies obtained for asymptomatic patients with a positive sentinel node (SN+). We characterize the utility, cost, and clinical implications of imaging studies obtained in asymptomatic SN+ patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of asymptomatic, clinically node-negative patients who were found to have a positive sentinel node after surgery. The type of imaging, subsequent tests/interventions, frequency of additional malignancy detected, and costs were recorded.

RESULTS

From April 2009 to April 2013, a total of 50 of 113 (44%) asymptomatic patients underwent staging imaging for a positive sentinel node; 11 (22%) patients had at least 1 subsequent imaging study or diagnostic intervention. No instance of metastatic breast cancer was identified, with a total cost of imaging calculated at $116,905.

CONCLUSIONS

Staging imaging for asymptomatic SN+ breast cancer demonstrates clinical variation. These tests were associated with low utility, increased costs, and frequent false positives leading to subsequent testing/intervention. Evidence-based standardization may help increase quality by decreasing unnecessary variation and cost.

Variation in metastatic workup for patients with invasive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite guidelines, surgeons vary in the metastatic workup they order for their breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Surgeons were surveyed as to their practices in ordering staging studies for their breast cancer patients using a Web-based survey. Nonparametric analyses were performed to determine factors associated with guideline adherence.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-three surgeons responded to the survey; 55.8% had practices with ≥50% breast patients; 7.3% of respondents stated they always did a metastatic workup before surgery, 8.6% never did; only 52.4% ordered a metastatic workup only in patients with clinical stage III disease. Surgeons who had ≥50% breast-related practices were more likely to follow these guidelines (P = .031). Only 17% stated that a computed tomography chest/abdomen and bone scan was their "usual" metastatic workup.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of surgeons perform metastatic workup when they are not indicated, and few adhere to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines in terms of the tests ordered.