Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Breast Imaging: what women & healthcare professionals need to know

Women in Radiology should be aware of the importance of early detection of breast cancer, the most common cancer in women. This knowledge is essential to advocate for high quality breast imaging for women, including themselves and their patients. The imaging modalities used in breast imaging have dramatically changed the way in which breast cancer may be diagnosed, and their use affects the stage at which it is diagnosed. Breast cancer may be screen-detected, either with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasound, breast MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography, and is typically diagnosed at stage 1. Incidental detection with Chest CT, abdominal CT or MRI or by PET CT may also lead to a diagnosis of breast cancer. When detected because of symptoms in women who have not undergone routine screening or as an interval cancer in women after a normal screen typically because of the masking effect of dense breast tissue, breast cancer is typically diagnosed at a more advanced stage, stage IIA or greater. A review of the imaging modalities currently used to diagnose breast cancer is provided and includes the advantages and limitations of each modality and the ways to optimize the imaging quality for detection of breast cancer. Up-to-date recommendations aimed to minimize the harms of delayed diagnosis of breast cancer are summarized to improve the health of women in Radiology and their patients.

Extremely dense breasts: A comprehensive review of increased cancer risk and supplementary screening methods

Women with extremely dense breasts account for approximately 10% of the screening population and face an increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. At the same time, the sensitivity of mammography, the first-line screening modality, is significantly reduced in this breast density group, owing to the masking effect of the abundant fibroglandular tissue. Consequently, this population has garnered increasing scientific attention due to the unique diagnostic challenge they present. Several research initiatives have attempted to address this diagnostic challenge by incorporating supplemental imaging modalities such as ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography. Each of these modalities offers different benefits as well as limitations, both clinically and practically, including considerations of availability and costs. The purpose of this article is to critically review the background, latest scientific evidence, and future directions for the use of the various supplemental screening techniques for women with extremely dense breasts.

Comparison of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and multiplexed sensitivity-encoding combined with deep learning-based reconstruction in breast magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (MUSE) with deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) for breast imaging in comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and MUSE alone.

METHODS

This study was conducted using conventional single-shot DWI and MUSE data of female participants who underwent breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from June to December 2023. The k-space data in MUSE were reconstructed using both conventional reconstruction and DLR. Two experienced radiologists conducted quantitative analyses of DWI, MUSE, and MUSE-DLR images by obtaining the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of lesions and normal tissue and qualitative analyses by using a 5-point Likert scale to assess the image quality. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Image scores, SNR, CNR, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements among the three sequences were compared using the Friedman test, with significance defined at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

In evaluations of the images of 51 female participants using the three sequences, the two radiologists exhibited good agreement (ICC = 0.540-1.000, P < 0.05). MUSE-DLR showed significantly better SNR than MUSE (P < 0.001), while the ADC values within lesions and tissues did not differ significantly among the three sequences (P = 0.924, P = 0.636, respectively). In the subjective assessments, MUSE and MUSE-DLR scored significantly higher than conventional DWI in overall image quality, geometric distortion and axillary lymph node (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In comparison with conventional DWI, MUSE-DLR yielded improved image quality with only a slightly longer acquisition time.

Risk-based breast cancer screening: What are the challenges?

Population-based screening programs aim to detect the disease at an early stage, so less treatment will be needed as well as having better oncological outcomes when diagnosed earlier. In the majority of European countries, breast cancer screening programs are designed based on women age.Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial data demonstrates a reduction in the relative risk of breast cancer mortality due to screening, which has been estimated to be approximately 20%.One of the controversies about the population breast screening programs is that age-based screening ignores women's individual breast cancer risk. Identification of high-risk women may intensify the screening measures and will optimize the population screening programs to align them to individual risks.Family history of breast cancer is one of the risk factors to consider along with the recently developed polygenic risk scores to stratify women into a risk group. Other factors to assess risk include: mammographic breast density; B3 lesions with atypia in breast biopsy specimens; hormonal and lyfestyle and, potentially, epigenetic markers. Still, there are some difficulties in validating these factors and reflecting the interaction between risk factors in the models.Ongoing screening trials (e.g., WISDOM and MyPebs) are currently evaluating the clinical acceptability and utility of risk-stratified screening programs in the general population, and should provide valuable information for the possible implementation of such programs.Communication of complex risk information to the women, as well as assessing ethical concerns need to be addressed before implementation of risk stratified programs.

Invasive Lobular Carcinoma in the Screening Setting

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second-most common histologic subtype of breast cancer, constituting 5% to 15% of all breast cancers. It is characterized by an infiltrating growth pattern that may decrease detectability on mammography and US. The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves conspicuity of ILC, and sensitivity is 80% to 88% for ILC. Sensitivity of mammography is lower in dense breasts, and breast tomosynthesis has better sensitivity for ILC in dense breasts compared with digital mammography (DM). Screening US identifies additional ILCs even after DBT, with a supplemental cancer detection rate of 0 to 1.2 ILC per 1000 examinations. Thirteen percent of incremental cancers found by screening US are ILCs. Breast MRI has a sensitivity of 93% for ILC. Abbreviated breast MRI also has high sensitivity but may be limited due to delayed enhancement in ILC. Contrast-enhanced mammography has improved sensitivity for ILC compared with DM, with higher specificity than breast MRI. In summary, supplemental screening modalities increase detection of ILC, with MRI demonstrating the highest sensitivity.

Differential Access to Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Mammography and Ultrasound

INTRODUCTION

For high-risk women, breast magnetic resonance (MR) is the preferred supplemental imaging option, but spatial access differences may exacerbate disparities in breast care.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study examining distance between ZIP codes and the nearest breast imaging facility (MR, mammography, ultrasound) using 2023 data from the Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Radiology. Linear regression was used to assess distance differences controlling for Area Deprivation Index (ADI), urbanicity, and population size. Analyses were conducted in 2024.

RESULTS

Among the 29,629 ZIP codes with an ADI and known urbanicity, unadjusted mean distance to breast MR was 23.2±25.1 miles (SD) compared with 8.2±8.3 for mammography and 22.2±25.0 for ultrasound. Hence, the average distance to breast MR facilities was 2.8 times further than to mammography facilities. ADI and urbanicity were associated with increased distance to the nearest breast imaging facility. The additional miles associated with the least advantaged areas compared with most advantaged areas was 12.2 (95%CI: 11.3, 13.2) for MR, 11.5 miles (95%CI: 10.6, 12.3) for ultrasound, and 2.4 (95%CI: 2.1, 2.7) for mammography. Compared with metropolitan areas, the additional miles to breast MR facilities was 23.2 (95%CI: 22.5, 24.0) for small/rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Spatial access is substantially better for mammography sites compared with breast MR or ultrasound sites. Given these findings, consideration of options to mitigate the impact of differential access should be considered. For example, mammography sites could offer contrast-enhanced mammography. Future research should examine the feasibility and effectiveness of this and other options.

Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases annually are diagnosed in young women, and this continues to be the leading cause of death in women age 20 to 49. Young, premenopausal breast cancer patients present with more advanced stages and with a higher proportion of aggressive subtypes such as triple negative and HER2-enriched tumors. Recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age threshold to initiate screening mammograms to age 40 to aid in earlier detection. Young age at diagnosis increases the likelihood for a pathogenic mutation, and genetic testing is recommended for all patients age 50 and younger. This population is often underrepresented in landmark clinical trials, and data is extrapolated for the treatment of young women with breast cancer. Despite there being no survival benefit to more extensive surgical treatments, such as mastectomy or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, many patients opt against breast conservation. Young patients with breast cancer face issues related to treatment toxicities, potential overtreatment of their disease, mental health, sexual health, and fertility preservation. This unique population requires a multidisciplinary care team of physicians, surgeons, genetic counselors, fertility specialists, mental health professionals, physical therapists, and dieticians to provide individualized, comprehensive care. Our aim is to (1) provide a narrative review of retrospective studies, relevant society guidelines, and clinical trials focused on the contemporary treatment and management of YBC patients and (2) discuss important nuances in their care as a guide for members of their multidisciplinary treatment team.

Clinical experience on the limited role of ultrasound for breast cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations carriers aged 30-39 years

PURPOSE

In BRCA germline pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) carriers aged 30-39 years imaging is recommended at six-month intervals. The European society for medical oncology recommendation of the use of 6-monthly MRI six-monthly MRI screening is being considered at our institution, particularly for younger carriers under the age of 35, although it is not mandatory. If 6-monthly MRI is unavailable, annual MRI may be supplemented by ultrasound (with or without mammography). The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of ultrasound screening added to mammography, as a 6-month supplement to annual MRI in BRCA PSV carriers aged 30-39 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This IRB approved retrospective study included BRCA PSV carriers aged 30-39 years, who underwent breast cancer screening at our institution between January 2015 and March 2023. Participants were divided into two groups, those who had supplemental whole-breast US and mammography at six months and underwent screening before March 2019, and those who had only mammography without supplemental US and enrolled in screening after March 2019. Patient characteristics, cancer detection rates and cancer characteristics were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 asymptomatic BRCA1/2 PSV carriers undergoing screening in our institution were included in the study. Mean age was 35.7 ± 3.5 years, and mean follow-up time was 37.4 ± 38.0 months. There were 118 (59 %) women screened with supplemental US, and 82 (41 %) women without. Eight cancers were diagnosed during the study period, four in women with supplemental US and four in women without. The sensitivity of whole-breast screening US was 25 % (1/4), specificity 85.7 % (222/259), PPV 2.6 % (1/38), and NPV 98.7 % (222/225). Of the four cancers detected in women screened with supplemental US, one was diagnosed by whole-breast US, two by MRI, and one by mammography. Of eight cancers included in this study, two were not detectable by targeted second-look US. All eight cancers were detectable by MRI.

CONCLUSION

The addition of whole-breast ultrasound to mammography and MRI screening in BRCA PSV carriers aged 30-39 years offered limited incremental benefit. MRI with 6 months supplemental mammography without US detected all cancer cases.

Performance of Abbreviated Breast MRI in High-Risk Patients in a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center

INTRODUCTION

The development of abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) protocols reduce scan times. This paper reports the performance of AB-MRI at a tertiary care public academic medical center in comparison with established literature.

METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant IRB-approved retrospective study reviewed 413 AB-MRI screenings in high-risk patients from June 2020 to March 2023. Data were collected from 3 databases (MagView, Cerner PowerChart, and Prism Primordial). Demographics and overall BI-RADS assessment were recorded. For all positive (BI-RADS 0, 3, 4, 5) examinations, manual review of each case was performed. Performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate [CDR], recall rate, positive predictive value [PPV] 3 and negative predictive value [NPV]) were calculated. PubMed and Google Scholar were used to review similar AB-MRI studies to compare performance metrics.

RESULTS

There were 413 AB-MRI examinations from 413 unique patients. The majority of cases were audit-negative BI-RADS 1 or 2 (83.8%, 346/413). There were 67 (16.2%, 67/413) audit-positive cases with 3.6% (15/413) BI-RADS 3, 10.9% (45/413) BI-RADS 4, 0.7% (3/413) BI-RADS 5, and 1.0% (4/413) BI-RADS 0. Performance metrics showed a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI, 63.1%-100.0%) and a specificity of 85.7% (95% CI, 81.9%-88.9%). The PPV3 was 14.3% (95% CI, 5.1%-23.5%), and the NPV was 100.0% (95% CI, 99.0%-100.0%). The CDR was 19.4 per 1000 screenings. The results are comparable to prior literature and benchmark data.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates high sensitivity (100.0%) and NPV (100.0%) of AB-MRI with comparable specificity (85.7%) and CDR (19.4/1000) to the literature, adding support to the use of AB-MRI. Further research is needed to optimize AB-MRI protocols.

Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) is the surgical removal of both breasts to reduce the risk of cancer. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, outcomes, and risks of BRRM to update the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. After literature review, recommendations were made according to group consensus. Individuals with a high lifetime risk of breast cancer due to pathogenic variants in high penetrance breast cancer-predisposition genes, early chest or breast radiation exposure, or a compelling family history should be counseled on the option of BRRM. However, BRRM is not recommended for most patients with high-risk lesions and may be contraindicated in patients who have other competing cancers and/or a high risk of surgical complications. BRRM effectively reduces the risk of breast cancer development, although the survival benefit is unclear. For patients with low-to-moderate breast cancer risk, alternative management strategies should be encouraged, including lifestyle modifications, high-risk screening, and risk-reducing medications. Discussions of BRRM should cover: (1) breast-cancer risk estimates; (2) the procedure's degree of risk reduction and impact on survival; (3) surgical techniques, potential surgical complications and long-term sequelae; and (4) alternatives to surgery. Surgeons should encourage shared and informed decision making with patients who have an elevated lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Prospective Study of Supplemental Screening With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer: Results of the Prevalence Round

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board-approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2-, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM.

CONCLUSION

A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

Survey on Current Utilization and Perception of Synthesized Mammography

OBJECTIVE

To assess utilization and perceptions of 2D synthesized mammography (SM) for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing U.S. breast radiologists.

METHODS

An IRB-exempt 23-question anonymized survey was developed by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and emailed to practicing U.S. radiologist SBI members on October 9, 2023. Questions assessed respondents' demographics, current mammographic screening protocol, confidence interpreting SM for mammographic findings, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of SM.

RESULTS

Response rate was 13.4% (371/2771). Of 371 respondents, 208 were currently screening with DBT/SM (56.1%), 98 with DBT/SM/digital mammography (DM) (26.4%), 61 with DBT/DM (16.4%), and 4 with DM (1.1%). Most respondents felt confident using DBT/SM to evaluate masses (254/319, 79.6%), asymmetries (247/319, 77.4%), and distortions (265/318, 83.3%); however, confidence was mixed for calcifications (agreement 130/320, 40.6%; disagreement 156/320, 48.8%; neutral 34/320, 10.6%). The most frequently cited disadvantage and advantage of SM were reconstruction algorithm false-positive results (199/347, 57.4%) and lower radiation dose (281/346, 81.2%), respectively. Higher confidence and fewer disadvantages were reported by radiologists who had more SM experience, screened with DBT/SM, or exclusively used Hologic vendor (all P <.05).

CONCLUSION

For most survey respondents (56.1%), SM has replaced DM in DBT screening. Radiologists currently screening with DBT/SM or with more SM experience reported greater confidence in SM with fewer perceived disadvantages.

Screening for Breast Cancer Risk: An Analysis of Under-recognized Risk Factors and Comparison of Interventions

Recognition of patients at high risk (HR) for breast cancer allows earlier screening and opportunities for risk reduction. We compare patients referred to our breast clinic as HR vs referrals for other reason (ROR) and found to be HR. We evaluate under-recognized factors and treatment differences. A retrospective chart review of patients found to be HR but referred for any reason to our breast clinic from July 2012 to December 2022 was performed. Referral reason, demographics, hormonal history, family history, and other risk factors were evaluated and compared (HR vs ROR). While other risk models were used for screening, Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick version 7 (TCv7) were used for comparison. Breast imaging received, hormonal therapy, and genetics referral evaluations were compared. 195 patients were referred to our breast team, 113 (58%) were referred as HR while 82 (42%) were ROR. Average age was 47 years old. 175 (91%) were Caucasian. 74 (65.5%) were referred for genetic testing, and 32 (26%) tested positive for a genetic mutation (n = 10, 12% ROR). 67 (35%) were recommended chemoprevention (n = 32, 16.4% took chemoprevention). 6 (3.1%) underwent prophylactic mastectomies and 163 (85%) had supplemental breast imaging. Comparison of HR vs ROR did not show significant differences in hormonal factors or treatments received; however, TCv7 was higher in the group referred as HR (P < .001). Our study showed that HR patients are more commonly referred secondary to family history but undergo similar treatments as those ROR. Accessibility to screening tools and education of risk factors, especially in minorities and those not otherwise being screened, may help better recognize HR.

Relative Timing of Mammography and MRI for Breast Cancer Screening: Impact on Performance Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods.

METHODS

We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up).

RESULTS

For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%).

DISCUSSION

Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Current State of Evidence-Based Long-Term Monitoring Protocols for Breast Plastic Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for breast surveillance following breast plastic surgery are frequently changing. Establishing guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols may help identify treatable conditions and prevent untoward sequelae. We sought to evaluate the current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for patients following breast augmentation, reduction, and breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Official guidelines from various American societies and international societies were analyzed for alignment in evidence-based recommendations regarding breast surveillance.

RESULTS

The most recent US FDA update recommends magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound starting 5-6 years after surgery and every 2-3 years thereafter. Discrepancies exist among professional societies: the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) aligns with the FDA, while the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology (ACR) find no role for imaging for asymptomatic cases. Ultrasound is first-line for any implant concerns, with MRI if necessary. European societies oppose routine breast implant imaging. Breast reduction patients lack unique screening protocols; monitoring aligns with age and cancer risk factors. Following mastectomy and breast reconstruction, most organizations advocate for annual clinical examinations, with more frequent examinations initially. Evidence suggests that physical examination is sufficient to detect local cancer recurrence, with imaging only indicated if there is concern for recurrence. No surveillance imaging is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or ASPS; however, ACR recommends mammography for autologous reconstruction only.

CONCLUSION

Multispecialty and regulatory body alignment may promote provider and patient adherence. Ongoing studies of long-term outcomes are needed to strengthen the level of evidence for monitoring guidelines.

Clinical guidelines for the management of mammographic density: a systematic review of breast screening guidelines worldwide

BACKGROUND

High breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and decreases the sensitivity of mammography. This systematic review synthesizes the international clinical guidelines and the evidence base for screening and supplemental screening recommendations in women with dense breasts.

METHODS

A systematic search of CINHAL, Embase, and Medline databases was performed in August 2023 and grey literature searched in January 2024. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument).

RESULTS

Of 3809 articles, 23 guidelines published from 2014 to 2024 were included. The content and quality varied between the guidelines; the average AGREE II total score was 58% (range = 23%-87%). Most guidelines recommended annual or biennial screening mammography for women more than 40 years old with dense breasts (n = 16). Other guidelines recommended breast tomosynthesis (DBT, n = 6) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, n = 1) as the preferred screening modality. One third of the guidelines (n = 8) did not recommend supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Of those that recommended supplemental screening (n = 14), ultrasound was the preferred modality (n = 7), with MRI (n = 3), DBT (n = 3), and contrast-enhanced mammography (n = 2) also recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus on supplemental screening in women with dense breasts is lacking. The quality of the guidelines is variable, and recommendations are based largely on low-quality evidence. As evidence of the benefits versus harms of supplemental screening in women with dense breasts is evolving, it is imperative to improve the methodological quality of breast cancer screening and supplemental screening guidelines.

Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

OPINION STATEMENT

Breast cancer does not wait until a woman reaches her 50's to strike. One in six cases occurs in women between the ages of 40 and 49 and breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women under 50 in the United States (10% of breast cancer deaths), emphasizing the urgency of early detection (American Society. 2024). Duffy et al. highlight the vital role of mammography screening in younger women, showing that starting screening at 40 reduces breast cancer mortality, with a consistent absolute reduction over time (Duffy et al. Health Technol Assess. 24(55):1-24, 2020). By starting yearly mammograms at 40, we could see a remarkable 40% reduction in breast cancer deaths (Monticciolo et al. J Am Coll Radiol. 18(9):1280-8, 2021). Screening at age 40 also adds little to the burden of overdiagnosis that already arises from screening at age 50 and older. Comparing this to biennial screening between ages 50-74, yearly screening at 40 saves approximately 13,770 more lives annually according to a report by the American Cancer Society published in JAMA in 2015 (Oeffinger et al. JAMA. 314(15):1599-614, 2015). But it's not just about saving lives; it's also about preserving quality of life. Between ages 40 and 49, 12-15% of years of life lost are attributed to breast cancer, highlighting the impact on women's lives. Early detection through screening can minimize these losses, ensuring more years spent with loved ones. It's clear: starting mammograms at age 40 saves lives. We must prioritize early detection and make screening accessible to all women, regardless of age. This proactive approach can reduce the burden of breast cancer and pave the way for a healthier future for women everywhere.

Performance of breast MRI for high-risk screening during lactation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic performance of breast MRI during lactation in the setting of high-risk breast cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Screening breast MRIs performed between April 2008 and March 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) grade was compared between lactating patients and patients who recently stopped lactating using the Mann-Whitney test. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores prevalence rates were compared between lactating patients and controls encompassing young non-lactating patients using the Chi-square test. Diagnostic performance was calculated for patients with a biopsy reference or a 1-year radiologic follow-up.

RESULTS

One-hundred forty-two screening breast MRIs were performed in lactating patients (n = 104, median age, 36.0 ± 6.0 years). Marked BPE appeared in 82% of cases (116/142), with a higher BPE grade in exams performed during lactation as compared with those performed in patients who had recently ceased lactating (p < 0.001). Screening MRIs performed during lactation had a higher rate of BI-RADS 3 scores (40/142, 28% vs. 683/8922, 7%, p < 0.001) and a lower rate of BI-RADS 1/2 scores (88/142, 62% vs. 7549/8922, 84.6%, p = 0.002) compared with those performed in controls (n = 8922). One pregnancy-associated breast cancer was detected, and one interval-cancer occurred. All MRI-guided biopsies were negative (n = 13). Screening breast MRI during lactation had 50% sensitivity (1/2), 60% specificity (72/120), 2.0% positive predictive value (1/49), and 98.6% negative predictive value (71/82).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of breast MRI for high-risk screening during lactation is limited by prominent BPE, leading to an increased rate of BI-RADS 3 categorization and diminished overall specificity.

KEY POINTS

Question Studies on breast MRI during lactation were solely focused on studies conducted in patients with known cancer but not in the screening setting. Findings Screening breast MRI during lactation usually results in marked background parenchymal enhancement, negatively impacting its diagnostic performance. Clinical relevance Despite the lower performance, and amidst the significant risk of pregnancy-associated breast cancer, this screening approach remains relevant for lactating patients with high-risk profiles, such as BReast Cancer (BRCA) carriers. Radiologists should be familiar with the normal appearance of breast MRI during lactation.

Evaluating ten years of breast cancer screening with contrast enhanced mammography in women with Intermediate-high risk

PURPOSE

While mammography is considered the gold standard for screening women for breast cancer, its accuracy declines in women with dense breasts. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for detecting breast cancer in intermediate and high-risk women, including those with genetic predispositions, over a decade-long cohort at a tertiary center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all CEM examinations performed for screening purposes at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2023. Data were extracted from imaging reports and from medical records. All biopsies performed up to one year following CEM examinations, and all breast cancer cases were extracted. BI-RADS scores from CEM reports were compared to biopsy results and to imaging follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and cumulative cancer detection rate were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall 5,424 screening CEM examinations were analyzed. The mean age was 54.8 ± 8.9 years. Family history of breast cancer was recorded in 1,134/5,424 (20.9 %) women. Most women (4,606/5,424, 84.9 %) had dense breasts (BI-RADS C-D). Overall, 628 biopsies were performed within one year of screening, and 74 cancers were detected. CEM had sensitivity 95.9 % (71/74), specificity 81.8 % (4378/5350), positive predictive value 6.8 % (71/1043), negative predictive value 99.9 % (4378/4381). The cancer detection rate for CEM was 13.1 per 1,000 cases, and the AUC was 0.923.

CONCLUSIONS

CEM is a viable breast cancer screening method for women with dense breasts. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term prognostic impact of CEM screening.

Abbreviated Breast MRI as a Supplement to Mammography in Family Risk History of Breast Cancer within the Croatian National Breast Screening Program

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of abbreviated breast MRI compared with mammography in women with a family history of breast cancer included in the Croatian National Breast Screening Program.

METHODS

178 women with a family history of breast cancer aged 50 to 69 underwent abbreviated breast MRI and mammography. Radiological findings for each method were categorized according to the BI-RADS classification. The gold standard for assessing the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI and mammography, in terms of suspicious BI-RADS 4 and BI-RADS 5 findings, was the histopathological diagnosis. Performance measures, including cancer detection rates, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values, were calculated for both imaging methods.

RESULTS

Twelve new cases of breast cancer were detected, with seven (58.3%) identified only by abbreviated breast MRI, four (33.3%) detected by both mammography and breast MRI, and one (8.3%) diagnosed only by mammography. Diagnostic accuracy parameters for abbreviated breast MRI were 91.67% sensitivity, 94.58% specificity, 55.0% positive predictive value (PPV), and 99.37% negative predictive value (NPV), while for mammography, the corresponding values were 41.67%, 96.39%, 45.46%, and 95.81%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Abbreviated breast MRI is a useful supplement to screening mammography in women with a family history of breast cancer. Considering the results of the conducted research, it is recommended to assess whether women with a family history of breast cancer have an increased risk and subsequently provide annual abbreviated breast MRI in addition to mammography for early detection of breast cancer.

A Nomogram Using Imaging Features to Predict Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

OBJECTIVE

To develop a nomogram that integrates clinical-pathologic and imaging variables to predict ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive women with DCIS who underwent BCS at two hospitals. Patients who underwent BCS between 2003 and 2016 in one hospital and between 2005 and 2013 in another were classified into development and validation cohorts, respectively. Twelve clinical-pathologic variables (age, family history, initial presentation, nuclear grade, necrosis, margin width, number of excisions, DCIS size, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy) and six mammography and ultrasound variables (breast density, detection modality, mammography and ultrasound patterns, morphology and distribution of calcifications) were analyzed. A nomogram for predicting 10-year IBTR probabilities was constructed using the variables associated with IBTR identified from the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis in the development cohort. The performance of the developed nomogram was evaluated in the external validation cohort using a calibration plot and 10-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and compared with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram.

RESULTS

The development cohort included 702 women (median age [interquartile range], 50 [44-56] years), of whom 30 (4%) women experienced IBTR. The validation cohort included 182 women (48 [43-54] years), 18 (10%) of whom developed IBTR. A nomogram was constructed using three clinical-pathologic variables (age, margin, and use of adjuvant radiation therapy) and two mammographic variables (breast density and calcification morphology). The nomogram was appropriately calibrated and demonstrated a comparable 10-year AUROC to the MSKCC nomogram (0.73 vs. 0.66, P = 0.534) in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram provided individualized risk estimates for women with DCIS treated with BCS, demonstrating a discriminative ability comparable to that of the MSKCC nomogram.

Commentary: Why is genetic testing underutilized worldwide? The case for hereditary breast cancer

It is thirty years since the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were discovered and genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was introduced. Despite increasing awareness of the genetic basis of cancer and our evolving knowledge of effective means of prevention, screening, and treatment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, genetic testing is underutilized, and most mutation carriers remain unidentified. In this commentary, we explore possible reasons for why this might be so. Our focus is on factors that may influence or deter a patient from pursuing testing, rather than discussing the implications of receiving a positive test result. Issues of concern include an inadequate number of genetic counselors, restrictive (and conflicting) eligibility criteria for testing, the cost of the test, health insurance coverage, fear of future insurance discrimination, privacy issues, lack of familiarity with the testing process in primary care and gaps in both patient and provider knowledge about the impact and the value of testing. We discuss how these factors may lead to the underutilization of genetic testing in North America and throughout the world and discuss alternative models of genetic healthcare delivery. We have invited leaders in cancer genetic from around the world to tell us what they think are the barriers to testing in their host countries.

Surveillance Strategies After Primary Treatment for Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Method of Local Recurrence Detection After Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common subtype of breast cancer. Although mammography is known to have low sensitivity for ILC, there are no data to guide the optimal surveillance after treatment. We explored surveillance strategies after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ILC and determined the proportion of imaging-detected recurrences versus interval cancers.

METHODS

From an institutional database of 813 women, we retrospectively identified patients who underwent BCS for stage I-III ILC and subsequently had a recurrence. We categorized patients by surveillance strategy and determined the modality of recurrence detection. Interval cancer rates for local recurrences were compared across surveillance strategies using the Chi-square test. We evaluated overall survival with the log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

We included 58 patients with ILC who had a recurrence after BCS. Of these, 22 (37.9%) had local recurrence, 27 (46.6%) had distant recurrence, and 9 (15.5%) had both local and distant recurrence. Most patients underwent routine mammographic surveillance (65.2%), with 19.6% having supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 15.2% having no surveillance. The interval cancer rate was significantly higher in the mammographic surveillance group compared with the MRI surveillance group (61.9% vs. 16.7%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study of patients with recurrence after BCS for primary treatment of stage I-III ILC, we found that most local recurrences were not detected by surveillance mammography. These data support further investigation of supplemental imaging beyond mammography specifically for patients with ILC who undergo BCS.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (P = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (P < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; P = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.

Defining the Need for Services for Patients at High Risk of Breast Cancer at a Safety-Net Hospital: An Approach to Narrowing the Disparities Gap

BACKGROUND

The National Accreditation Program for Breast Cancer (NAPBC) standards were recently revised to promote breast cancer (BC) risk assessment and subsequent referral for high-risk services. This project sought to estimate the proportion of patients at high risk for BC in the authors' safety-net hospital system, gauge patient interest in high-risk services, and define resources for program development.

METHODS

Women presenting for breast imaging during 2 weeks in 2023 were surveyed. Thirty-five patients with a history or diagnosis of BC were excluded. The Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model version 8 was used to calculate BC risk. High/intermediate risk was defined as a 10-year risk of 5% or more, a lifetime risk of 15% or more, or both. The criteria for genetic counseling and testing referral were based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients had a TC risk assessment showing 14.8% (n = 38) with a 10-year BC risk of 5% or more (consideration of endocrine therapy), 6.2% (n = 16) with a lifetime BC risk of 20% or more (qualifying for annual screening MRI), and 10.5% (n = 27) with a lifetime BC risk of 15% or more (consideration of high-risk screening). The criteria for genetic counseling/testing were met by 61 (23.7%) of the 257 patients. Overall, 31.5% (n = 81) qualified for high/intermediate-risk screening, risk reduction, and/or genetic assessment/testing, 92.8% of whom were interested in referrals for additional information and care.

CONCLUSIONS

In the authors' community, almost one third of patients undergoing breast imaging qualify for BC high-risk assessment and services. The majority of the patients expressed interest in pursuing such services. These data will be used in financial planning and resource allocation to develop a high-risk program at the authors' institution in line with NAPBC guidelines. They are hopeful that these efforts will improve oncologic outcomes and survival from BC in their community.

ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women accounting for about 30% of all new cancer cases and the incidence is constantly increasing. Implementation of mammographic screening has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of at least 20% over the last 30 years. Screening programs usually include all women irrespective of their risk of developing breast cancer and with age being the only determining factor. This approach has some recognized limitations, including underdiagnosis, false positive cases, and overdiagnosis. Indeed, breast cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women undergoing cancer screening. Supplemental imaging modalities, including digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, breast MRI, and, more recently, contrast-enhanced mammography, are available and have already shown potential to further increase the diagnostic performances. Use of breast MRI is recommended in high-risk women and women with extremely dense breasts. Artificial intelligence has also shown promising results to support risk categorization and interval cancer reduction. The implementation of a risk-stratified approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach may help to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio as well as the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: Regular mammography should still be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women and women with extremely dense breast tissue should use MRI for supplemental screening or US if MRI is not available. Women need to participate actively in the decision to undergo personalized screening. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Mammography is an effective imaging tool to diagnose breast cancer in an early stage and to reduce breast cancer mortality (evidence level I). Until more evidence is available to move to a personalized approach, regular mammography should be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women should start screening earlier; first with yearly breast MRI which can be supplemented by yearly or biennial mammography starting at 35-40 years old (evidence level I). Breast MRI screening should be also offered to women with extremely dense breasts (evidence level I). If MRI is not available, ultrasound can be performed as an alternative, although the added value of supplemental ultrasound regarding cancer detection remains limited. Individual screening recommendations should be made through a shared decision-making process between women and physicians.

Diagnostic Value of Artificial Intelligence in Minimal Breast Lesions Based on Real-Time Dynamic Ultrasound Imaging

Purpose

: To explore the diagnostic value of artificial intelligence (AI)-based on real-time dynamic ultrasound imaging system for minimal breast lesions.

Patients and Methods

Minimal breast lesions with a maximum diameter of ≤10mm were selected in this prospective study. The ultrasound equipment and AI system were activated Simultaneously. The ultrasound imaging video is connected to the server of AI system to achieve simultaneous output of AI and ultrasound scanning. Dynamic observation of breast lesions was conducted via ultrasound. And these lesions were evaluated and graded according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification system through deep learning (DL) algorithms in AI. Surgical pathology was taken as the gold standard, and ROC curves were drawn to determine the area under the curve (AUC) and the optimal threshold values of BI-RADS. The diagnostic efficacy was compared with the use of a BI-RADS category >3 as the threshold for clinically intervening in diagnosing minimal breast cancers.

Results

291 minimal breast lesions were enrolled in the study, of which 228 were benign (78.35%) and 63 were malignant (21.65%). The AUC of the ROC curve was 0.833, with the best threshold value >4A. When using >BI-RADS 3 and >BI-RADS 4A as threshold values, the sensitivity and negative predictive value for minimal breast cancers were higher for >BI-RADS 3 than >BI-RADS 4A (100% vs 65.08%, 100% vs 89.91%, P values <0.001). However, the corresponding specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy were lower than those for >BI-RADS 4A (42.11% vs 85.96%, 32.31% vs 56.16%, and 54.64% vs 81.44%, P values <0.001).

Conclusion

The AI-based real-time dynamic ultrasound imaging system shows good capacity in diagnosing minimal breast lesions, which is helpful for early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, and improves the prognosis of patients. However, it still results in some missed diagnoses and misdiagnoses of minimal breast cancers.

Strategies for Identifying and Recruiting Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer for Research Outside of Clinical Settings: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Research is needed to understand and address barriers to risk management for women at high (≥20% lifetime) risk for breast cancer, but recruiting this population for research studies is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This paper compares a variety of recruitment strategies used for a cross-sectional, observational study of high-risk women.

METHODS

Eligible participants were assigned female at birth, aged 25-85 years, English-speaking, living in the United States, and at high risk for breast cancer as defined by the American College of Radiology. Individuals were excluded if they had a personal history of breast cancer, prior bilateral mastectomy, medical contraindications for magnetic resonance imaging, or were not up-to-date on screening mammography per American College of Radiology guidelines. Participants were recruited from August 2020 to January 2021 using the following mechanisms: targeted Facebook advertisements, Twitter posts, ResearchMatch (a web-based research recruitment database), community partner promotions, paper flyers, and community outreach events. Interested individuals were directed to a secure website with eligibility screening questions. Participants self-reported method of recruitment during the eligibility screening. For each recruitment strategy, we calculated the rate of eligible respondents and completed surveys, costs per eligible participant, and participant demographics.

RESULTS

We received 1566 unique responses to the eligibility screener. Participants most often reported recruitment via Facebook advertisements (724/1566, 46%) and ResearchMatch (646/1566, 41%). Community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of eligible respondents (24/46, 52%), while ResearchMatch had the lowest proportion of eligible respondents (73/646, 11%). Word of mouth was the most cost-effective recruitment strategy (US $4.66 per completed survey response) and paper flyers were the least cost-effective (US $1448.13 per completed survey response). The demographic characteristics of eligible respondents varied by recruitment strategy: Twitter posts and community outreach events resulted in the highest proportion of Hispanic or Latina women (1/4, 25% and 2/6, 33%, respectively), and community partner promotions resulted in the highest proportion of non-Hispanic Black women (4/24, 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment strategies varied in their yield of study participants, results overall support the feasibility of identifying and recruiting women at high risk for breast cancer outside of clinical settings. Researchers must balance the associated costs and participant yield of various recruitment strategies in planning future studies focused on high-risk women.

Optimizing the Patient Experience in Breast Imaging Facilities: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Breast imaging studies are complex examinations for patients and providers. Breast imaging providers and organizations invest significant resources in educating patients and referring physicians to address variability in changing breast cancer screening recommendations, cultural biases, and socioeconomic barriers for patients. The breast imaging examination frequently involves multiple imaging modalities, including interventional procedures, thus requiring multiple room types. Practices need to consider the variables that affect workflow efficiency throughout the process of examination scheduling, performance, interpretation, and results delivery, as well as options in facilities design for creating inviting yet functional environments for patients. Breast imaging appointments provide an opportunity to capture individual breast cancer risk and to engage patients in health education and breast screening awareness. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review discusses ways in which breast imaging facilities can optimize a patient's experience throughout the complex process of a breast imaging examination, based on the authors' observations and opinions informed by private and academic breast imaging experience.

Barriers and facilitators to breast cancer screening among high-risk women: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Women with greater than 20-25% lifetime breast cancer risk are recommended to have breast cancer screening with annual mammogram and supplemental breast MRI. However, few women follow these screening recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of screening among women at high risk for breast cancer, guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM).

METHODS

Unaffected high-risk women (N=63) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with breast cancer screening. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a combined deductive and inductive approach.

RESULTS

Most participants (84%) had received a screening mammogram; fewer (33%) had received a screening breast MRI. Only 14% had received neither screening. In line with the HSUM, qualitative analysis identified predisposing factors, enabling factors, and need factors associated with receipt of breast cancer screening. Enabling factors - including financial burden, logistic barriers, social support, and care coordination - were most frequently discussed. Predisposing factors included knowledge, health beliefs, and self-advocacy. Need factors included healthcare provider recommendation, family history of breast cancer, and personal medical history. Although HSUM themes were consistent for both mammography and breast MRI, participants did highlight several important differences in barriers and facilitators between the two screening modalities.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and enabling factors associated with supplemental screening for high-risk women represent possible intervention targets. Future research is needed to develop and test multilevel interventions targeting these factors, with the ultimate goal of increasing access to supplemental screening for high-risk women.

Breast Cancer Screening in the Intermediate-Risk Population: Falling Through the Cracks?

Breast cancer screening guidelines vary for women at intermediate risk (15%-20% lifetime risk) for developing breast cancer across jurisdictions. Currently available risk assessment models have differing strengths and weaknesses, creating difficulty and ambiguity in selecting the most appropriate model to utilize. Clarifying which model to utilize in individual circumstances may help determine the best screening guidelines to use for each individual.

Measuring patient-reported distress from breast magnetic resonance imaging: Development and validation of the MRI-related distress scale (MRI-DS)

OBJECTIVE

Although breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable screening tool, breast MRI testing burden was associated with cancer worry and quality of life. We aimed to develop and validate the MRI-related distress scale (MRI-DS) to assess comprehensive distress specifically related to breast MRI.

METHODS

We enrolled women aged above 18 years, diagnosed breast cancer, had MRI examination at least one time, and who could speak and read Korean in phase I and enrolled women aged above 18 years, visited outpatient clinic of breast general surgery, had undergone MRI examination at least once, and could speak and read Korean in phase II. We excluded patients who had any physical or psychiatric conditions in both phases. We recruited from a tertiary university-based hospital in South Korea between April and August 2023.

RESULTS

All 18 items had acceptable levels of item correlation (≥0.30) in the explanatory factor analysis with a four-factor solution. The fit indices for the four-factor solution model were good. The discriminant validity of the MRI-DS had a moderate correlation with general anxiety or quality of life. In the known-group analysis, those who reported MRI as the most burden breast examination had higher total scores.

CONCLUSION

The validity of the MRI-DS has been confirmed as a scale for measuring the specific distress caused by breast MRI. The MRI-DS is recommended to health professional to communicate with patients with MRI.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

It can be used to assess the distress associated with MRI screening in breast cancer patients. Physician could use MRI-DS to discuss the reasons for distress caused by breast MRI screening and to address specific sources of discomfort associated with it.

Performance of Supplemental US Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Varying Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Background It is unclear whether breast US screening outcomes for women with dense breasts vary with levels of breast cancer risk. Purpose To evaluate US screening outcomes for female patients with dense breasts and different estimated breast cancer risk levels. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study used data from US screening examinations in female patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts conducted from January 2014 to October 2020 at 24 radiology facilities within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The primary outcomes were the cancer detection rate, false-positive biopsy recommendation rate, and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3). Risk classification of participants was performed using established BCSC risk prediction models of estimated 6-year advanced breast cancer risk and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Differences in high- versus low- or average-risk categories were assessed using a generalized linear model. Results In total, 34 791 US screening examinations from 26 489 female patients (mean age at screening, 53.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included. The overall cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average risk of 6-year advanced breast cancer (5.5 [95% CI: 3.5, 8.6] vs 1.3 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.8], respectively; P = .003). The overall false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations was 29.6 (95% CI: 22.6, 38.6) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced breast cancer risk (37.0 [95% CI: 28.2, 48.4] vs 28.1 [95% CI: 20.9, 37.8], respectively; P = .04). The overall PPV3 was 6.9% (67 of 975; 95% CI: 5.3, 8.9) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced cancer risk (15.0% [15 of 100; 95% CI: 9.9, 22.2] vs 4.9% [30 of 615; 95% CI: 3.3, 7.2]; P = .01). Similar patterns in outcomes were observed by 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Conclusion The cancer detection rate and PPV3 of supplemental US screening increased with the estimated risk of advanced and invasive breast cancer. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Helbich and Kapetas in this issue.

Limited impact of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to full field digital mammography in an elevated breast cancer risk population

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to full field digital mammography (FFDM) in screening asymptomatic women with an elevated breast cancer life time risk (BCLTR) but without known genetic mutation.

METHODS

This IRB-approved single-institution multi-reader study on prospectively acquired FFDM + DBT images included 429 asymptomatic women (39-69y) with an elevated BC risk on their request form. The BCLTR was calculated for each patient using the IBISrisk calculator v8.0b. The screening protocol and reader study consisted of 4-view FFDM + DBT, which were read by four independent radiologists using the BI-RADS lexicon. Standard of care (SOC) included ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women with > 30 % BCLTR. Breast cancer detection rate (BCDR), sensitivity and positive predictive value were assessed for FFDM and FFDM + DBT and detection outcomes were compared with McNemar-test.

RESULTS

In total 7/429 women in this clinically elevated breast cancer risk group were diagnosed with BC using SOC (BCDR 16.3/1000) of which 4 were detected with FFDM. Supplemental DBT did not detect additional cancers and BCDR was the same for FFDM vs FFDM + DBT (9.3/1000, McNemar p = 1). Moderate inter-reader agreement for diagnostic BI-RADS score was found for both study arms (ICC for FFDM and FFDM + DBT was 0.43, resp. 0.46).

CONCLUSION

In this single institution study, supplemental screening with DBT in addition to standard FFDM did not increase BCDR in this higher-than-average BC risk group, objectively documented using the IBISrisk calculator.

Hormone therapy in women with benign breast disease - What little is known and suggestions for clinical implementation

Benign breast disease encompasses a spectrum of lesions within the breast. While some lesions pose no increase in risk, others may elevate the likelihood of developing breast cancer by four- to five-fold. This necessitates a personalized approach to screening and lifestyle optimization for women. The menopausal transition is a critical time for the development of benign breast lesions. Increased detection can be attributed to the heightened precision and utilization of screening mammography, with or without the use of supplemental imaging. While it is widely acknowledged that combined hormone therapy involving estrogen and progesterone may elevate the risk of breast cancer, data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) indicates that estrogen-alone therapies may actually reduce the overall risk of cancer. Despite this general understanding, there is a notable gap in information regarding the impact of hormone therapy on the risk profile of women with specific benign breast lesions. This review comprehensively examines various benign breast lesions, delving into their pathophysiology and management. The goal is to enhance our understanding of when and how to judiciously prescribe hormone therapy, particularly in the context of specific benign breast conditions. By bridging this knowledge gap, the review provides valuable insights into optimizing healthcare strategies for women with benign breast disease, and offers a foundation for more informed decision-making regarding hormone therapy.

Auditing Abbreviated Breast MR Imaging: Clinical Considerations and Implications

Abbreviated breast MR (AB-MR) imaging is a relatively new breast imaging tool, which maintains diagnostic accuracy while reducing image times compared with full-protocol breast MR (FP-MR) imaging. Breast imaging audits involve calculating individual and organizational metrics, which can be compared with established benchmarks, providing a standard against which performance can be measured. Unlike FP-MR imaging, there are no established benchmarks for AB-MR imaging but studies demonstrate comparable performance for cancer detection rate, positive predictive value 3, sensitivity, and specificity with T2. We review the basics of performing an audit, including strategies to implement if benchmarks are not being met.

Breast Density: Where Are We Now?

Breast density refers to the amount of fibroglandular tissue relative to fat on mammography and is determined either qualitatively through visual assessment or quantitatively. It is a heritable and dynamic trait associated with age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, and hormonal factors. Increased breast density has important clinical implications including the potential to mask malignancy and as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models. Given the impact of dense breasts on the interpretation of mammography, supplemental screening may be indicated.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Importance

Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate.

Objective

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review.

Population

Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer.

Evidence Assessment

The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density.

Recommendation

The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Predicting five-year interval second breast cancer risk in women with prior breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Risk prediction models that estimate mammography failures such as interval second breast cancers could help to tailor surveillance imaging regimens to women's individual risk profiles.

METHODS

In a cohort of women with a history of breast cancer receiving surveillance mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in 1996-2019, we used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-penalized regression to estimate the probability of an interval second cancer (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) in the 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Based on predicted risks from this one-year risk model, we generated cumulative risks of an interval second cancer for the five-year period after each mammogram. Model performance was evaluated using cross-validation in the overall cohort and within race and ethnicity strata.

RESULTS

In 173 290 surveillance mammograms, we observed 496 interval cancers. One-year risk models were well-calibrated (expected/observed ratio = 1.00) with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.64). Model performance was similar across race and ethnicity groups. The median five-year cumulative risk was 1.20% (interquartile range 0.93%-1.63%). Median five-year risks were highest in women who were under age 40 or pre- or perimenopausal at diagnosis and those with estrogen receptor-negative primary breast cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our risk model identified women at high risk of interval second breast cancers who may benefit from additional surveillance imaging modalities. Risk models should be evaluated to determine if risk-guided supplemental surveillance imaging improves early detection and decreases surveillance failures.

Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines

Addressing the challenges of survivorship necessitates a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, identifying distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. This article will discuss the current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, advocating a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach. In this manner, early-stage breast cancer survivors are empowered to navigate their journey with enhanced knowledge, facilitating a transition to life beyond cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Bridging Gaps: Analyzing Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0 Rates and Associated Risk Factors in Disproportionally Affected Communities

Introduction Disparities in access to breast cancer screening led to the creation of the Linda Fenner 3D Mobile Mammography Center (LFMMC), successfully increasing screening for uninsured women in Miami-Dade. However, a higher-than-expected rate of inconclusive mammograms (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0) was found, which could lead to unnecessary procedures, stress, costs, and radiation. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 3,044 uninsured women aged over 40 (younger if positive family history of breast cancer) from Miami-Dade without breast symptoms or breast cancer history. Women's demographic characteristics, primary language spoken, body mass index (BMI), use of hormone replacement therapy and birth control, history of benign biopsy, breast surgery, family breast cancer, and menopausal status were assessed as potential risk factors for an inconclusive (BI-RADS 0) screening mammogram result. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations. Results The average age of women was 51 years (SD = 9); 59% were White, and 30% were African American. The overall frequency of BI-RADS 0 was 35%. Higher odds of BI-RADS 0 were found for women who were younger, single, premenopausal, and with benign biopsy history. Conversely, obesity and breast implant history decreased the odds of BI-RADS 0. Conclusion We found a high frequency of BI-RADS 0 in the LFMMC sample. Potential reasons include a higher risk for breast cancer or a younger sample of women screened. Future research should explore radiologists' reasoning for assigning BI-RADS 0 results and testing alternative screening strategies for younger women.

Identify risk factors affecting participation of Turkish women in mammography screening for breast cancer prevention

PURPOSE

Cancer screening is a public health intervention aiming to reduce cancer-caused deaths. This study aims to determine the factors affecting the mammography screening time among women aged 40-69.

METHODS

The micro dataset obtained from the Türkiye Health Survey conducted by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) in 2019 and 2022 was used in the present study. Stereotype logistic regression was used to determine the variables affecting mammography screening and period for breast cancer prevention in women in Türkiye.

RESULTS

Given the results achieved from the analysis, it was found that factors such as age, marital status, general health condition, comorbidity, receiving psychosocial support, high blood lipid levels, and performing breast self-examinations affected women's adherence to cancer screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Since adherence to mammography increases with age, it is recommended to pay importance to education for women approaching the age of mammography screening. Educated individuals are expected to have access to multiple sources of information as to cancer and to access this information more easily. In order to gain more insight into the recommended preventive measures and outcomes related to cancer, it is suggested to review policies, which will increase the educational level of women, and provide privileges in the field of education.