1
|
Terzoni A, Basile P, Gambaro AC, Attanasio S, Rampi AM, Brambilla M, Carriero A. Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA 2024; 129:558-565. [PMID: 38512618 PMCID: PMC11021306 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01789-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Breast cancer diagnosis often involves assessing the locoregional spread of the disease through MRI, as multicentricity, multifocality and/or bilaterality are increasingly common. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a potential alternative method. This study compares the performance of CEM and MRI in preoperative staging of women with confirmed breast carcinoma. Patients were also asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire to rate their comfort level with each investigation. METHODS From May 1st, 2021 to May 1st, 2022, we enrolled 70 women with confirmed breast carcinoma who were candidates for surgery. For pre-operative locoregional staging, all patients underwent CEM and MRI examination, which two radiologists evaluated blindly. We further investigated all suspicious locations for disease spread, identified by both CEM and MRI, with a second-look ultrasound (US) and eventual histological examination. RESULTS In our study cohort, MRI and CEM identified 114 and 102 areas of focal contrast enhancement, respectively. A true discrepancy between MRI and CEM occurred in 9 out of 70 patients examined. MRI reported 8 additional lesions that proved to be false positives on second-look US in 6 patients, while it identified 4 lesions that were not detected by CEM and were pathological (true positives) in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS CEM showed results comparable to MRI in the staging of breast cancer in our study population, with a high rate of patient acceptability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Terzoni
- Scuola di Specializzazione Radiodiagnostica, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
| | - Paola Basile
- Scuola di Specializzazione Radiodiagnostica, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Marco Brambilla
- Health Physics Department, University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lo Gullo R, Marcus E, Huayanay J, Eskreis-Winkler S, Thakur S, Teuwen J, Pinker K. Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Breast MRI: Applications in Breast Cancer Primary Treatment Response Assessment and Prediction. Invest Radiol 2024; 59:230-242. [PMID: 37493391 PMCID: PMC10818006 DOI: 10.1097/rli.0000000000001010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Primary systemic therapy (PST) is the treatment of choice in patients with locally advanced breast cancer and is nowadays also often used in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Although imaging remains pivotal to assess response to PST accurately, the use of imaging to predict response to PST has the potential to not only better prognostication but also allow the de-escalation or omission of potentially toxic treatment with undesirable adverse effects, the accelerated implementation of new targeted therapies, and the mitigation of surgical delays in selected patients. In response to the limited ability of radiologists to predict response to PST via qualitative, subjective assessments of tumors on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), artificial intelligence-enhanced MRI with classical machine learning, and in more recent times, deep learning, have been used with promising results to predict response, both before the start of PST and in the early stages of treatment. This review provides an overview of the current applications of artificial intelligence to MRI in assessing and predicting response to PST, and discusses the challenges and limitations of their clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Lo Gullo
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66 Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Eric Marcus
- AI for Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jorge Huayanay
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66 Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Department of Radiology, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru
| | - Sarah Eskreis-Winkler
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66 Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Sunitha Thakur
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jonas Teuwen
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66 Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands
- AI for Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66 Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sardanelli F, Trimboli RM, Houssami N, Gilbert FJ, Helbich TH, Álvarez Benito M, Balleyguier C, Bazzocchi M, Bult P, Calabrese M, Camps Herrero J, Cartia F, Cassano E, Clauser P, Cozzi A, de Andrade DA, de Lima Docema MF, Depretto C, Dominelli V, Forrai G, Girometti R, Harms SE, Hilborne S, Ienzi R, Lobbes MBI, Losio C, Mann RM, Montemezzi S, Obdeijn IM, Ozcan UA, Pediconi F, Pinker K, Preibsch H, Raya Povedano JL, Sacchetto D, Scaperrotta GP, Schiaffino S, Schlooz M, Szabó BK, Taylor DB, Ulus ÖS, Van Goethem M, Veltman J, Weigel S, Wenkel E, Zuiani C, Di Leo G. Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA). Eur Radiol 2021; 32:1611-1623. [PMID: 34643778 PMCID: PMC8831264 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08240-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2021] [Revised: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Sardanelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. .,Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.
| | - Rubina M Trimboli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nehmat Houssami
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Fiona J Gilbert
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Thomas H Helbich
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Research Group: Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | | | - Massimo Bazzocchi
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Peter Bult
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Massimo Calabrese
- Unit of Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Cartia
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Clauser
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Research Group: Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrea Cozzi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Catherine Depretto
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Valeria Dominelli
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gábor Forrai
- Department of Radiology, MHEK Teaching Hospital, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Rossano Girometti
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Steven E Harms
- Breast Center of Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
| | - Sarah Hilborne
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Raffaele Ienzi
- Department of Radiology, Di.Bi.MED, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Policlinico Universitario Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Claudio Losio
- Department of Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Ritse M Mann
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stefania Montemezzi
- Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Inge-Marie Obdeijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Umit A Ozcan
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Federica Pediconi
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
| | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Research Group: Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Heike Preibsch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | | | - Daniela Sacchetto
- Kiwifarm S.R.L, La Morra, Italy.,Disaster Medicine Service 118, ASL CN1, Saluzzo, Italy.,CRIMEDIM, Research Center in Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale "Amedeo Avogadro", Novara, Italy
| | | | - Simone Schiaffino
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Margrethe Schlooz
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Botond K Szabó
- Department of Radiology, Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna B Taylor
- Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.,Department of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Özden S Ulus
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mireille Van Goethem
- Gynecological Oncology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Radiology, Multidisciplinary Breast Clinic, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- Maatschap Radiologie Oost-Nederland, Oldenzaal, The Netherlands
| | - Stefanie Weigel
- Institute of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Evelyn Wenkel
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Chiara Zuiani
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Giovanni Di Leo
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Amin AL, Sack S, Larson KE, Winblad O, Balanoff CR, Nazir N, Wagner JL. Does the Addition of Breast MRI Add Value to the Diagnostic Workup of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma? J Surg Res 2020; 257:144-152. [PMID: 32828998 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2019] [Revised: 07/09/2020] [Accepted: 07/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) has unique histologic growth pattern. Few studies have focused on the value of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) specifically for ILC. We hypothesized that MRI adds value to the diagnostic workup in ILC by better defining the extent of disease and identifying additional foci of malignancy, which can change the surgical plan. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a single-institution retrospective review of women diagnosed with ILC from 1/2012 to 7/2019 who underwent preoperative MRI. Patient, tumor characteristics, and initial surgical plan were reviewed. MRI had added value if ILC size correlated best to final pathologic size or if additional malignancy was identified. MRI was considered harmful if additional biopsies were benign or if the size was overestimated. RESULTS ILC was identified in 166 breasts in 165 women. Original surgical plan was for lumpectomy in 86 (52%), mastectomy in 49 (30%), and undecided in 31 (18%). MRI changed the plan in 25 (19%) with 24 (96%) changing from lumpectomy to mastectomy. Additional biopsy was performed in 28% after MRI, the majority (n = 41, 72%) were benign or high risk and 16 (28%) identified additional malignancy. MRI was not a better size estimate than mammogram/ultrasound. Re-excision rate after lumpectomy was 6.8% (5/73). MRI added value in 48 (28.9%) and was harmful in 48 (28.9%). CONCLUSIONS Using breast MRI in the diagnostic workup of ILC has both positive and negative implications on surgical treatment planning. A shared decision-making conversation is warranted before proceeding with MRI to maximize value and minimize harms associated with this diagnostic tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda L Amin
- Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas.
| | - Stephen Sack
- Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Kelsey E Larson
- Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Onalisa Winblad
- Department of Radiology, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Christa R Balanoff
- Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Niaman Nazir
- Department of Population Health, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Jamie L Wagner
- Department of Surgery, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, Kansas
| |
Collapse
|