Supplemental Screening for Patients at Intermediate and High Risk for Breast Cancer

Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging

Imaging research pathways focus increasingly on the development of individualised approaches to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and management. Detection of breast cancer with X-ray mammography may fail in some cancer subtypes with limited changes in morphology/tissue density and in women with dense breasts. International organisations offer recommendations for contrast-enhanced breast imaging, as it provides superior sensitivity for screening, local staging and assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response, when compared with standard X-ray mammography (including tomosynthesis) and breast ultrasound. Arguably, the evidence base is stronger for contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). Unfortunately, patient access to breast MRI in rural and remote areas is limited by practical limitations and equipment licensing restrictions. Moreover, breast MRI is an expensive test, likely to be out of reach for many women. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) offers an attractive alternative to improve patient access to functional breast imaging. It is a new type of digital, dual energy X-ray mammography that can be performed on most modern units, following a relatively inexpensive hard- and software upgrade. In this paper, we review the rapidly accumulating evidence that CEM can provide similar diagnostic accuracy to CE-MRI, though at a significantly lower cost and offering greater comfort to the patient. The adoption of CEM can help meet the anticipated increased demand for CE-MRI.

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.

A scoping review of programme specific mammographic breast density related guidelines and practices within breast screening programmes

Introduction

High mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent breast cancer risk factor. In organised breast screening settings, discussions are ongoing regarding the optimal clinical role of MBD to help guide screening decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of current practices incorporating MBD within population-based breast screening programmes and from professional organisations internationally.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Grey literature sources, websites of international breast screening programmes, and relevant government organisations were searched to identify further relevant literature. Data from identified materials were extracted and presented as a narrative summary.

Results

The search identified 78 relevant documents. Documents were identified for breast screening programmes in 18 countries relating to screening intervals for women with dense breasts, MBD measurement, reporting, notification, and guiding supplemental screening. Documents were identified from 18 international professional organisations with the majority of material relating to supplemental screening guidance for women with dense breasts. Key factors collated during the data extraction process as relevant considerations for MBD practices included the evidence base needed to inform decision-making processes and resources (healthcare system costs, radiology equipment, and workforce planning).

Conclusions

This scoping review summarises current practices and guidelines incorporating MBD in international population-based breast screening settings and highlights the absence of consensus between organised breast screening programmes incorporating MBD in current breast screening protocols.

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: Recent Advances in Imaging and Current Limitations

Breast cancer detection has a significant impact on population health. Although there are many breast imaging modalities, mammography is the predominant tool for breast cancer screening. The introduction of digital breast tomosynthesis to mammography has contributed to increased cancer detection rates and decreased recall rates. In average-risk women, starting annual screening mammography at age 40 years has demonstrated the highest mortality reduction. In intermediate- and high-risk women as well as in those with dense breasts, additional modalities, including MRI, ultrasound, and molecular breast imaging, can also be considered for adjunct screening to improve the detection of mammographically occult malignancy.

Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in an urban screening clinic among high- and average-risk women in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed records of 6090 women who received ≥2 screening mammograms over 2 years at the Karmanos Cancer Institute to examine how breast cancer risk and breast density were associated with guideline-concordant screening. Incongruent screening was defined as receiving supplemental imaging between screening mammograms for average-risk women, and as not receiving recommended supplemental imaging for high-risk women. We used t-tests and chi-square tests to examine bivariate associations with guideline-congruent screening, and probit regression to regress guideline-congruence unto breast cancer risk, breast density, and their interaction, controlling for age and race.

RESULTS

Incongruent screening was more likely among high- versus average-risk women (97.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). Among average-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with dense versus nondense breasts (2.0% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01). Among high-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with nondense versus dense breasts (99.5% vs. 95.2%, p < 0.01). The significant main effects of density and high-risk on increased incongruent screening were qualified by a density by high-risk interaction, showing a weaker association between risk and incongruent screening among women with dense breasts (simple slope = 3.71, p < 0.01) versus nondense breasts (simple slope = 5.79, p < 0.01). Age and race were not associated with incongruent screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines has led to underutilization of supplementary imaging for high-risk women and potential overutilization for women with dense breasts without other risk factors.

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Identifying and Managing Patients with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Presenting for Screening Mammography

BACKGROUND

Identifying the prevalence and management of patients at high-risk for breast cancer can improve resource utilization and provide individualized screening strategies.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of high-risk patients in our institution who presented for screening mammography and to understand how they utilized downstream resources offered to them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single institution retrospective study utilized the Tyrer-Cuzick risk assessment model to provide lifetime risk of breast cancer of patients presenting for screening mammography over a one-year period. Their subsequent management and resource utilization were collated.

RESULTS

High-risk patients comprised 7.7% (701/9061) of our screening population. Of those high-risk women offered a Breast Center (BC) consultation, 75.2% (276/367) participated in the consultation, with 51.1% (141/276) of those patients completing MRI for supplemental screening. Risk reducing medication was adopted by 7.6% (6/79) of those offered. Of patients offered a genetics consultation, 66.3% (53/80) participated in the consultation, and 50.0% (40/80) completed genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying and understanding high-risk patient cohorts, whether locally or in a population-based context, is important for individualized patient care and practice efficiency.

What's Hot in Breast MRI

Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.

Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models

Accurate and individualized breast cancer risk assessment can be used to guide personalized screening and prevention recommendations. Existing risk prediction models use genetic and nongenetic risk factors to provide an estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk and/or the likelihood that she has a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Each model is best suited for specific clinical scenarios and may have limited applicability in certain types of patients. For example, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which identifies women who would benefit from chemoprevention, is readily accessible and user-friendly but cannot be used in women under 35 years of age or those with prior breast cancer or lobular carcinoma in situ. Emerging research on deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models suggests that mammographic images contain risk indicators that could be used to strengthen existing risk prediction models. This article reviews breast cancer risk factors, describes the appropriate use, strengths, and limitations of each risk prediction model, and discusses the emerging role of AI for risk assessment.