The Connecticut Experiment: The Role of Ultrasound in the Screening of Women With Dense Breasts

Radiology of fibrosis. Part I: Thoracic organs

Sustained injury from factors such as hypoxia, infection, or physical damage may provoke improper tissue repair and the anomalous deposition of connective tissue that causes fibrosis. This phenomenon may take place in any organ, ultimately leading to their dysfunction and eventual failure. Tissue fibrosis has also been found to be central in both the process of carcinogenesis and cancer progression. Thus, its prompt diagnosis and regular monitoring is necessary for implementing effective disease-modifying interventions aiming to reduce mortality and improve overall quality of life. While significant research has been conducted on these subjects, a comprehensive understanding of how their relationship manifests through modern imaging techniques remains to be established. This work intends to provide a comprehensive overview of imaging technologies relevant to the detection of fibrosis affecting thoracic organs as well as to explore potential future advancements in this field.

Integration of Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound among Women with Negative Mammographic Screening Findings: A Multi-center Population-based Study in China

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the role of second-look automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) adjunct to mammography (MAM) versus MAM alone in asymptomatic women and compared it with supplementing handheld ultrasound (HHUS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women aged 45 to 64 underwent HHUS, ABUS, and MAM among six hospitals in China from 2018 to 2022. We compared the screening performance of three strategies (MAM alone, MAM plus HHUS, and MAM plus ABUS) stratified by age groups and breast density. McNemar's test was used to assess differences in the cancer detection rate (CDR), the false-positive biopsy rate, sensitivity, and specificity of different strategies.

RESULTS

Of 19,171 women analyzed (mean [SD] age, 51.54 [4.61] years), 72 cases of breast cancer (3.76 per 1000) were detected. The detection rates for both HHUS and ABUS combined with MAM were statistically higher than those for MAM alone (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in cancer yields between the two integration strategies. The increase in CRD of the integrated strategies was higher in women aged 45-54 years with denser breasts compared with MAM alone (all p < 0.0167). In addition, the false-positive biopsy rate of MAM plus ABUS was lower than that of MAM plus HHUS (p = 0.025). Moreover, the retraction in ABUS was more frequent in cases detected among MAM-negative results.

CONCLUSION

Integrated ABUS or HHUS into MAM provided similar CDRs that were significantly higher than those for MAM alone in younger women (45-54 years) with denser breasts. ABUS has the potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies and provides specific image features to distinguish malignant tumors from HHUS.

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.

Emerging uses of artificial intelligence in breast and axillary ultrasound

Breast ultrasound is a valuable adjunctive tool to mammography in detecting breast cancer, especially in women with dense breasts. Ultrasound also plays an important role in staging breast cancer by assessing axillary lymph nodes. However, its utility is limited by operator dependence, high recall rate, low positive predictive value and low specificity. These limitations present an opportunity for artificial intelligence (AI) to improve diagnostic performance and pioneer novel uses of ultrasound. Research in developing AI for radiology has flourished over the past few years. A subset of AI, deep learning, uses interconnected computational nodes to form a neural network, which extracts complex visual features from image data to train itself into a predictive model. This review summarizes several key studies evaluating AI programs' performance in predicting breast cancer and demonstrates that AI can assist radiologists and address limitations of ultrasound by acting as a decision support tool. This review also touches on how AI programs allow for novel predictive uses of ultrasound, particularly predicting molecular subtypes of breast cancer and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which have the potential to change how breast cancer is managed by providing non-invasive prognostic and treatment data from ultrasound images. Lastly, this review explores how AI programs demonstrate improved diagnostic accuracy in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis. The limitations and future challenges in developing and implementing AI for breast and axillary ultrasound will also be discussed.

Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast US in Asian Women with Dense and Nondense Breasts

Background Automated breast (AB) US effectively depicts mammographically occult breast cancers in Western women. However, few studies have focused on the outcome of supplemental AB US in Asian women who have denser breasts than Western women. Purpose To evaluate the performance of supplemental AB US on mammography-based breast cancer screening in Asian women with dense breasts and those with nondense breasts. Materials and Methods A retrospective database search identified asymptomatic Korean women who underwent digital mammography (DM) and supplemental AB US screening for breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. We excluded women without sufficient follow-up, established final diagnosis, or histopathologic results. Performance measures of DM alone and AB US combined with DM (hereafter AB US plus DM) were compared. The primary outcome was cancer detection rate (CDR), and the secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were performed based on mammography density. Results From 2785 screening examinations in 2301 women (mean age, 52 years ± 9 [SD]), 28 cancers were diagnosed (26 screening-detected cancers, two interval cancers). When compared with DM alone, AB US plus DM resulted in a higher CDR of 9.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 7.7, 10.3) versus 6.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 5.2, 7.2; P < .001) and a higher sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI: 77.3, 100.0) versus 63.6% (95% CI: 40.9, 81.8; P < .001) but a lower specificity of 86.8% (95% CI: 85.2, 88.2) versus 94.6% (95% CI: 93.6, 95.5; P < .001) in women with dense breasts. In women with nondense breasts, AB US plus DM resulted in a higher CDR of 9.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 7.1, 10.6) versus 6.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.5, 7.1; P < .001), whereas specificity was lower at 95.2% (95% CI: 93.4, 96.8) versus 97.1% (95% CI: 95.8, 98.4; P < .001). Conclusion In Asian women, the addition of automated breast US to digital mammography showed higher cancer detection rates but lower specificities in both dense and nondense breasts. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis

Breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities by breast density and breast cancer risk has not been widely studied, and the optimal choice of modality for women with dense breasts remains unclear in clinical practice and guidelines. This systematic review aimed to assess breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities for women with dense breasts, by breast cancer risk. Systematic reviews (SRs) in 2000 to 2021, and primary studies in 2019 to 2021, on outcomes of supplemental screening modalities (digital breast tomography [DBT], MRI (full/abbreviated protocol), contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (hand-held [HHUS]/automated [ABUS]) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS C&D) were identified. None of the SRs analyzed outcomes by cancer risk. Meta-analysis of the primary studies was not feasible due to lack of studies (MRI, CEM, DBT) or methodological heterogeneity (ultrasound); therefore, findings were summarized narratively. For average risk, a single MRI trial reported a superior screening performance (higher cancer detection rate [CDR] and lower interval cancer rate [ICR]) compared to HHUS, ABUS and DBT. For intermediate risk, ultrasound was the only modality assessed, but accuracy estimates ranged widely. For mixed risk, a single CEM study reported the highest CDR, but included a high proportion of women with intermediate risk. This systematic review does not allow a complete comparison of supplemental screening modalities for dense breast populations by breast cancer risk. However, the data suggest that MRI and CEM might generally offer superior screening performance versus other modalities. Further studies of screening modalities are urgently required.

Addressing Misinformation About the Canadian Breast Screening Guidelines

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 41% in screened women ages 40-69 years. There is misinformation about breast screening and the Canadian breast screening guidelines. This can decrease confidence in screening mammography and can lead to suboptimal recommendations. We review some of this misinformation to help radiologists and referring physicians navigate the varied international and provincial guidelines. We address the ages to start and stop breast screening. We explore how these recommendations may vary for specific populations such as patients who are at increased risk, transgender patients and minorities. We identify who would benefit from supplemental screening and review the available supplemental screening modalities including ultrasound, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography and others. We describe emerging technologies including the potential use of artificial intelligence for breast screening. We provide background on why screening policies vary across the country between provinces and territories. This review is intended to help radiologists and referring physicians understand and navigate the varied international and provincial recommendations and guidelines and make the best recommendations for their patients.

The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening

The purpose of breast cancer screening is to find cancers early to reduce mortality and to allow successful treatment with less aggressive therapy. Mammography is the gold standard for breast cancer screening. Its efficacy in reducing mortality from breast cancer was proven in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from the early 1960s to the mid 1990s. Panels that recommend breast cancer screening guidelines have traditionally relied on the old RCTs, which did not include considerations of breast density, race/ethnicity, current hormone therapy, and other risk factors. Women do not all benefit equally from mammography. Mortality reduction is significantly lower in women with dense breasts because normal dense tissue can mask cancers on mammograms. Moreover, women with dense breasts are known to be at increased risk. To provide equity, breast cancer screening guidelines should be created with the goal of maximizing mortality reduction and allowing less aggressive therapy, which may include decreasing the interval between screening mammograms and recommending consideration of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. This review will address the issue of dense breasts and the impact on the stage of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis, and discuss options for supplemental screening.

Associating Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) in Clinical Practice in Cases of Women with Dense Breast Tissue

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the value of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared to FFDM associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods: This retrospective study included 50 female patients with a denser framework of connective tissue fibers, characteristic of young women who underwent FFDM, DBT, handheld ultrasound (HHUS), and ABUS between January 2017 and October 2018. The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of FFDM+ABUS were 81.82% (95% CI [48.22–97.72]), 89.74% (95% CI [75.78–97.13]), 69.23% (95% CI [46.05–85.57]), 94.59% (95% CI [83.26–98.40]), and 88% (95% CI [75.69–95.47]), while for FFDM+DBT, the values were as follows: 91.67% (95% CI [61.52–99.79]), 71.79% (95% CI [55.13–85.00]), 50% (95% CI [37.08–62.92]), 96.55% (95% CI [80.93–99.46]), 76.47% (95% CI [62.51–87.21]). We found an almost perfect agreement between the two readers regarding FFDM associated with ABUS, and substantial agreement regarding FFDM+DBT, with a kappa coefficient of 0.896 and 0.8, respectively; p < 0.001. Conclusions: ABUS and DBT are suitable as additional diagnostic imaging techniques to FFDM in women at an intermediate risk of developing breast cancer through the presence of dense breast tissue. In this study, DBT reduced the number of false negative results, while the use of ABUS resulted in an increase in specificity.

Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals

Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.

Multicentric study to evaluate the effectiveness of Thermalytix as compared with standard screening modalities in subjects who show possible symptoms of suspected breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Machine learning in computer-assisted diagnostics improves sensitivity of image analysis and reduces time and effort for interpretation. Compared to standard mammograms, a thermal scan is easily scalable and is a safer screening tool. We evaluate the performance of Thermalytix (an automated thermographic screening algorithm) compared with other standard breast cancer screening modalities.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study was conducted to assess the non-inferiority of sensitivity of Thermalytix (test device) to that of standard modalities in detecting malignancy in subjects who show possible symptoms of suspected breast cancer. Standard screening modalities and Thermalytix were obtained and interpreted independently in a blinded fashion. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to identify the best cut-off point, non-inferiority margin of ≥10% to demonstrate the non-inferiority.

RESULTS

We recruited 258 symptomatic women who first underwent a thermal scan, followed by mammogram and/or ultrasound. At Youden's Index of ROC curve, the test device had a sensitivity of 82.5% (95% CI 73.2 to 91.9) and specificity of 80.5% (95% CI 75.0 to 86.1) as compared with diagnostic mammogram, which had sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 80.7 to 97.8) and specificity of 45.9% (95% CI 34.3 to 57.9) when BI-RADS 3 (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System) was considered as test-positive. The overall area under the curve (AUC) was 0.845. For women aged <45 years, the test device had a sensitivity and specificity of 87.0% (95% CI 66.4 to 97.2) and 80.6% (95% CI 72.9 to 86.9), respectively. For women aged ≥45 years, the sensitivity and specificity were 80.5% (95% CI 65.1 to 91.2) and 86.5% (95% CI 78.0 to 92.6, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We evaluated Thermalytix, a new AI-based modality for detecting breast cancer. The high AUC in both women under 45 years and above 45 years shows the potential of Thermalytix to be a supplemental diagnostic modality for all ages. Further evaluation on larger sample size is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2017/10/0 10 115.

Molecular Breast Imaging: A Scientific Review

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a nuclear medicine technique that has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Technical advances have allowed reductions in administered doses to the point that they are now acceptable for screening. The most common radiotracer used in MBI, 99mTc-sestamibi, has a long history of safe use. Biopsy capability has become available in recent years, with early clinical experience demonstrating technically successful biopsies of MBI-detected lesions. MBI has been shown to be an effective supplemental screening tool in women with dense breasts and is also utilized for breast cancer staging, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, problem solving, and as an alternative to breast MRI in women who have a contraindication to MRI. The degree of background parenchymal uptake on MBI shows promise as a tool for breast cancer risk stratification. Radiologist interpretation is guided by a validated MBI lexicon that mirrors the BI-RADS lexicon. With short interpretation times, a fast learning curve for radiologists, and a substantially lower cost than breast MRI, MBI provides many benefits in the practices in which it is utilized. This review will discuss the current state of MBI technology, clinical applications of MBI, MBI interpretation, radiation dose associated with MBI, and the future of MBI.

Utility of supplemental screening with breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer

Objective:

To assess the results of an initial round of supplemental screening with hand-held bilateral breast ultrasound following a negative screening mammogram in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, Institutional Research Board approved study was performed at a single academic tertiary breast center. Informed consent was waived. A systematic review of the breast imaging center database was conducted to identify and retrieve data for all asymptomatic women, who were found to have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue on screening bilateral mammograms performed from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 and who received a mammographic final assessment American College of Radiology's (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or BI-RADS category 2. Hand-held screening ultrasound was performed initially by a technologist followed by a radiologist. Chi-square and t-test were used and statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05.

Results:

A total of 1210 women were identified. Of these, 394 underwent the offered supplemental screening ultrasound. BI-RADS category 1 or 2 was assigned to 323 women (81.9%). BI-RADS category 3 was assigned to 50 women (12.9%). A total of 26 biopsies/aspirations were recommended and performed in 26 women (6.6%). The most common finding for which biopsy was recommended was a solid mass (88.5%) with an average size of 0.9 cm (0.5–1.7 cm). Most frequent pathology result was fibroadenoma (60.8%). No carcinoma was found.

Conclusion:

Our data support the reported occurrence of a relatively high number of false positives at supplemental screening with breast ultrasound following a negative screening mammogram in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue, who are not at a high risk of developing breast cancer, and suggests that caution is necessary in establishing wide implementation of this type of supplemental screening for all women with dense breast tissue without considering other risk factors for breast cancer.

Chronological Trends of Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Because no prior studies have evaluated the chronological trends of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) despite the increasing number of surgeries performed for DCIS, this study analyzed how the clinical, radiologic, and pathologic characteristics of DCIS changed during a 10-year period.

METHODS

Of 7123 patients who underwent primary breast cancer surgery at a single institution from 2006 to 2015, 792 patients with pure DCIS were included in this study. The chronological trends of age, symptoms, method for detecting either mammography or ultrasonography, tumor size, nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, and molecular markers were calculated using Poisson regression for all patients and asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

During 10 years, DCIS surgery rates significantly increased (p < 0.001). Despite the high percentage of DCIS detected on mammography, the detection rate for DCIS by mammography significantly decreased (97.3% in 2006 to 67.6% in 2015; p = 0.025), whereas the detection rate by ultrasound significantly increased (2.7% to 31.0%; p < 0.001). Conservation surgery rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.058), low-to-intermediate nuclear grade rates (OR, 1.069), and the absence of comedonecrosis (OR, 1.104) significantly increased over time (all p < 0.05). Estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (OR, 0.935) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity rates (OR, 0.953) significantly decreased (all p < 0.05). The same trends were observed for the 613 asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSION

The rate of DCIS detected on ultrasound only significantly increased during 10 years. Low-to-intermediate nuclear grade rates significantly increased, whereas ER negativity and HER2 positivity rates significantly decreased during the same period. These findings suggest that DCIS detected on screening ultrasound is less aggressive than DCIS detected on mammography.

ABUS examination time: An observational study of operators' experience

OBJECTIVE

In this study we aimed to evaluate the operation times of ABUS by technologists during the learning time course and share the learning experience.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

The first consequent 400 examinations after the installation of an ABUS unit in the breast clinic between August 2017 and December 2017 were included. Total examination time was measured for each procedure. The initial and final examination times during the learning period were compared. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney Test.

RESULTS

The acquisition times for routine six position examination ranged between eight and 36 minutes with an average of 13.2 ± 3.58 min. The examination time for the eight position examination ranged between 18 and 32 min, with an average of 22.9 ± 3.93 min. The overall average examination time was 13.3 ± 3.98 min. There was a significant difference (p = 0.00) between the average initial and final examination times of the learning period with an average decrease of 10.6 min.

CONCLUSION

The average time of an ABUS examination for an average breast is less than 15 min. ABUS examination time reduced as technologists became familiar with the sonographic anatomy of the breast and experienced in positioning technique during the learning curve.

The Added Value of Supplemental Breast Ultrasound Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: A Single Center Canadian Experience

PURPOSE

We evaluated the contribution to cancer detection of supplemental breast ultrasound screening in women with dense breasts based on a single center experience by comparing our results with similar programs elsewhere.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of handheld sonographer-performed screening ultrasound exams at our academic breast imaging center, from January 1st to December 31st, 2019. Breast density, breast cancer risk factors, BI-RADS assessment, and lesion pathology were reviewed and tallied, followed by derivation of the biopsy rate, breast cancer detection rate, PPV3 and average tumor size. These values were compared to published results of breast screening programs elsewhere.

RESULTS

695 screening breast ultrasounds for women with dense breasts and negative mammograms were performed in 2019. The biopsy rate was 1.3%, breast cancer detection rate was 7 in 1000, PPV3 was 42%, and the average tumor size was 9.0 ± 1.4 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-year data of the breast screening ultrasound program at our practice are promising, demonstrating comparable cancer detection rate, higher PPV3, and similar biopsy rate in those with dense breasts compared with similar programs elsewhere. Longitudinal analysis and larger sample size are required for validation. Comparison of incidence and prevalence screening data is also warranted to elucidate the true value of this program.

Physicians' perceptions of breast density notification laws and appropriate patient follow-up

Breast density notification laws have been adopted in the absence of consistent guidelines for post-notification follow-up. This can lead to inconsistent and potentially deficient management of women's health due to inconsistent physician practices. We examined physicians' knowledge and practices regarding follow-up for patients who receive density notifications. Physicians who referred patients to a Michigan hospital network for screening mammograms were recruited to participate in survey study; 105 (29.8%) responded. The survey assessed physicians' demographics, knowledge, and awareness of breast density and breast cancer risk and of density notification laws, and perceptions of appropriate follow-up behaviors for their patients who received density notifications. Most physicians (75%) knew about the notification law, and they were generally comfortable responding to breast density questions and deciding on follow-up. Most indicated that additional breast imaging (68.0%), followed by assessing breast cancer risk (24.7%) were appropriate follow-up responses. Physicians who performed breast cancer risk assessments, and who were more comfortable with breast density questions and follow-up decision making, were more likely to propose additional imaging. Male physicians were less likely to propose assessing breast cancer risk, and less likely to propose clinical and/or breast self-examinations. Divergence between practice and guidelines when it comes to supplemental breast cancer screening, coupled with density notification language that promotes additional screening in the absence of consistent evidence, remains concerning. Improved understanding of how density notification recipients and their physicians make decisions about supplemental screening is warranted to ensure that breast cancer risk is properly considered.

Diagnostic Performance of Adjunctive Imaging Modalities Compared to Mammography Alone in Women with Non-Dense and Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of mammography (MG) alone versus MG combined with adjunctive imaging modalities, including handheld ultrasound (HHUS), automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with non-dense and dense breasts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2019. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

In dense breasts, adding adjunctive modalities significantly increased cancer detection rates (CDRs): HHUS (relative risk [RR] = 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.86; P = .0005); ABUS (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16-1.78; P = .0008); DBT (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.67; P = .001); CEM (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .003); and MRI (RR = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.81-2.58; P < .00001). The recall rate was significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89-2.17; P < .00001), ABUS (RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.81-1.99; P < .00001), and MRI (RR = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.73-4.25; P < .0001), but not by DBT (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.36; P = .15). In non-dense breasts, HHUS and MRI showed significant increases in CDRs but not DBT: HHUS (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .04); MRI (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01); and DBT (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.13-1.75; P = .08). The recall rate was also significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-1.59; P < .00001) and MRI (RR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.68-5.39; P = .0002), whereas DBT showed a non-significant reduction (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05; P = .12).

CONCLUSION

Adding adjunctive modalities to MG increases CDRs in women with dense and non-dense breasts. Ultrasound and MRI increase recall rates across all breast densities; however, MRI results in higher values for both CDRs and recall rates.

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

The sensitivity of mammography is more limited in patients with dense breasts and some patients at higher risk for breast cancer. Patients with intermediate or high risk for breast cancer may begin screening earlier and benefit from supplemental screening techniques beyond standard 2-dimensional mammography. A patient's individual risk factors for developing breast cancer, their breast density, and the evidence supporting specific modalities for a given clinical scenario help to determine the need for supplemental screening and the modality chosen. Additional factors include the availability of supplemental screening techniques at an individual institution, cost, insurance coverage, and state-specific breast density legislation.

Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening for Dense Breasts

Mammography is the primary screening method for breast cancers. However, the sensitivity of mammographic screening is lower for dense breasts, which are an independent risk factor for breast cancers. Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is used as an adjunct to mammography for screening breast cancers in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. It is an effective screening modality with diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of handheld ultrasound (HHUS). Radiologists should be familiar with the unique display mode, imaging features, and artifacts in ABUS, which differ from those in HHUS. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the clinical significance of dense breasts and ABUS screening, describe the unique features of ABUS, and introduce the method of use and interpretation of ABUS.

A Call to Action: Now Is the Time to Screen Elderly and Treat Osteosarcopenia, a Position Paper of the Italian College of Academic Nutritionists MED/49 (ICAN-49)

Aging is a risk factor for the development of multiple chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and dementia. Life expectancy has increased in certain countries but this phenomenon is associated with a reduction of years of healthy life. Aging is associated with a number of physical and functional changes, especially sarcopenia. Sarcopenia is a clinical condition associated with a decrease in skeletal muscle and muscle strength, however, sarcopenia is a reversible condition. On the basis of the current scientific literature, sarcopenia could more appropriately capture an individual's vulnerability to negative health-related outcomes since it represents an early form of the chronic diseases. Recognition of this clinical condition can improve the management of older individuals in many different clinical settings. Despite the limitations of the indirect methods used to study body composition, the Italian College of the Academic Nutritionists ME/49 recommends that health authorities and health professionals around the world should make a greater effort to diagnose sarcopenia earlier and to manage it more effectively. In line with the development of cancer screening, the use of two diagnostic tools for sarcopenia (BIA and DXA) should be implemented.

Breast mass assessment on chest CT: Axial, sagittal, coronal or maximal intensity projection?

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this work is to determine the optimal projection to detect breast masses on Chest CT.

METHODS

Institutional Review Board (HIPPA compliant) approval was obtained with a waiver of consent. 10 image pairs of Chest CT images containing breast masses were selected for review by 10 chest radiologists: the pairs consisted of axial, sagittal, coronal and axial MIP images (MIP images) with each projection compared to a MIP and with one another. For each pair, the image where the mass was most conspicuous was recorded.

RESULTS

MIPs were preferred to any cross sectional projection 82% of the time; sagittal (63%) or coronal (63%) images were preferred to the axial projection. When sagittal and coronal images were compared there was no preference.

CONCLUSIONS

MIP images should be obtained and reviewed for breast pathology; sagittal or coronal projections may provide additional information.

Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Mammography is not effective in detecting breast cancer in dense breasts.

Methods

A search in Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases was conducted from January 1, 1980 to April 10, 2019 to identify women with dense breasts screened by mammography (M) and/or ultrasound (US). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

Results

A total of 21 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity values of M alone and M + US in patients were 74% and 96%, while specificity of the two methods were 93% and 87%, respectively. Screening sensitivity was significantly higher in M + US than M alone (risk ratio: M alone vs. M + US = 0.699, P < 0.001), but the slight difference in specificity was statistically significant (risk ratio = 1.060, P = 0.001). Pooled diagnostic performance of follow-up US after initial negative mammography demonstrated a high pooled sensitivity (96%) and specificity (88%). The findings were supported by subgroup analysis stratified by study country, US method and timing of US.

Conclusions

Breast cancer screening by supplemental US among women with dense breasts shows added detection sensitivity compared with M alone. However, US slightly decreased the diagnostic specificity for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of supplemental US in detecting malignancy in dense breasts should be considered additionally.

False-negative results on computer-aided detection software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography of breast cancer patients

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to measure the cancer detection rate of computer-aided detection (CAD) software in preoperative automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) of breast cancer patients and to determine the characteristics associated with false-negative outcomes.

Methods

A total of 129 index lesions (median size, 1.7 cm; interquartile range, 1.2 to 2.4 cm) from 129 consecutive patients (mean age±standard deviation, 53.4±11.8 years) who underwent preoperative ABUS from December 2017 to February 2018 were assessed. An index lesion was defined as a breast cancer confirmed by ultrasonography (US)-guided core needle biopsy. The detection rate of the index lesions, positive predictive value (PPV), and false-positive rate (FPR) of the CAD software were measured. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify clinical and US findings associated with false-negative outcomes.

Results

The detection rate of the CAD software was 0.84 (109 of 129; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.90). The PPV and FPR were 0.41 (221 of 544; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.45) and 0.45 (174 of 387; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.50), respectively. False-negative outcomes were more frequent in asymptomatic patients (P<0.001) and were associated with the following US findings: smaller size (P=0.001), depth in the posterior third (P=0.002), angular or indistinct margin (P<0.001), and absence of architectural distortion (P<0.001).

Conclusion

The CAD software showed a promising detection rate of breast cancer. However, radiologists should judge whether CAD software-marked lesions are true- or false-positive lesions, considering its low PPV and high FPR. Moreover, it would be helpful for radiologists to consider the characteristics associated with false-negative outcomes when reading ABUS with CAD.

Supplemental Breast US Screening in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study

Background There is limited research on supplemental screening breast US in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Purpose To compare the performance of supplemental screening breast US in women with and women without a PHBC by using a matched cohort. Materials and Methods Consecutive asymptomatic women who underwent radiologist-performed supplemental breast US and mammography between January 2013 and December 2013 at a tertiary referral university hospital were retrospectively identified. Inclusion criteria were negative or benign findings at mammography, follow-up data for at least 1 year, first cancer stage of 0 to II in women with a PHBC, and incidence screening in women without a PHBC. The two groups were matched 1:1 according to age and breast density. Performance measures were compared with McNemar test, generalized estimating equation, or penalized likelihood logistic regression. Results A total of 3226 women with a PHBC were matched with 3226 women without a PHBC (mean age ± standard deviation, 52 years ± 9; mammographic breast density, fatty in 603 and dense in 2623). Fourteen cancers (six screen-detected, eight interval cancers) were found in women with a PHBC and 13 cancers (12 screen-detected, one interval cancer) in women without a PHBC. Supplemental US in women with a PHBC compared with women without a PHBC showed lower sensitivity (43% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 18%, 71%; six of 14 cancers] vs 92% [95% CI: 64%, 100%; 12 of 13 cancers]; P = .03), higher interval cancer rates (2.5 [95% CI: 1.1, 4.9; eight of 3226 women] vs 0.3 [95% CI: 0, 1.7; one of 3226 women] per 1000; P = .02), and higher specificity (92.8% [95% CI: 91.9%, 93.7%; 2982 of 3212 women] vs 89.3% [95% CI: 88.2%, 90.4%; 2870 of 3213 women]; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion Supplemental US screening in women with a personal history of breast cancer had lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate but higher specificity relative to women without a personal history of breast cancer. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Lee in this issue.

Diagnostic performance of machine learning applied to texture analysis-derived features for breast lesion characterisation at automated breast ultrasound: a pilot study

Background

Our aims were to determine if features derived from texture analysis (TA) can distinguish normal, benign, and malignant tissue on automated breast ultrasound (ABUS); to evaluate whether machine learning (ML) applied to TA can categorise ABUS findings; and to compare ML to the analysis of single texture features for lesion classification.

Methods

This ethically approved retrospective pilot study included 54 women with benign (n = 38) and malignant (n = 32) solid breast lesions who underwent ABUS. After manual region of interest placement along the lesions’ margin as well as the surrounding fat and glandular breast tissue, 47 texture features (TFs) were calculated for each category. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) and a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm were applied to the texture feature to evaluate the accuracy in distinguishing (i) lesions versus normal tissue and (ii) benign versus malignant lesions.

Results

Skewness and kurtosis were the only TF significantly different among all the four categories (p < 0.000001). In subsets (i) and (ii), a maximum area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.88) for energy and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.89) for entropy were obtained. Using the SVM algorithm, a maximum area under the curve of 0.98 for both subsets was obtained with a maximum accuracy of 94.4% in subset (i) and 90.7% in subset (ii).

Conclusions

TA in combination with ML might represent a useful diagnostic tool in the evaluation of breast imaging findings in ABUS. Applying ML techniques to TFs might be superior compared to the analysis of single TF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41747-019-0121-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Breast Density

Background: Many states have enacted breast density laws, requiring that women be informed of their breast density status; however there is currently no consensus for screening guidelines or recommendations for women with dense breasts. The objective of this study is to access physician views about breast density and their practices for breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts in light of breast density laws. Materials and Methods: Setting: Academic medical centers, community and private practices mostly in New York City. Participants: Primary care providers (PCPs), radiologists and gynecologists. Procedure: We conducted the study through anonymous, self-administered surveys about physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding screening of women with dense breasts. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences between PCPs and specialists. Results: We received 155 responses of which 75% were female, 77% were attending-level physicians, 42% were PCPs, 28% were radiologists, 17% were gynecologists, and 9% other. Almost half of the respondents (48%) were unaware of breast density laws, and two-thirds (67%) felt they needed more education about breast density and supplemental screening. More than half of the respondents (62%) were unaware of the increased risk of breast cancer related to dense breasts. Compared to specialists, PCPs were less aware of their state's breast density laws (odds ratio [OR] 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.50) and of the increased breast cancer risk for women with dense breasts (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.60). Conclusion: Breast density laws have not translated into greater knowledge of breast density and recommendations for supplemental screening among PCPs.

The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Dense breast tissue increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammography sensitivity, but the value of supplemental imaging for dense breasts remains uncertain. Since 2009, 37 states and Washington DC have passed legislation requiring patient notification about breast density.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the effects of state breast density notification laws on use of supplemental breast imaging and breast biopsies.

DESIGN

Difference-in-differences analysis of supplemental imaging and biopsies before and after notification laws in 12 states enacting breast density notification laws from 2009 to 2014 and 12 matched control states. Supplemental imaging/biopsy within 6 months following an index mammogram were evaluated during four time periods related to legislation: (1) 6 months before, (2) 0-6 months after, (3) 6-12 months after, and (4) 12-18 months after.

PARTICIPANTS

Women ages 40-64 years receiving an initial mammogram in a state that passed a breast density notification law or a control state.

INTERVENTION

Mandatory breast density notification following an index mammogram.

MAIN MEASURES

Use of breast biopsies and supplemental breast imaging (breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintimammography, and thermography), overall and by specific test.

KEY RESULTS

Supplemental breast imaging and biopsy increased modestly in states with notification laws and changed minimally in control states. Adjusted rates of supplemental imaging and biopsy within 6 months of mammography before legislation were 8.5% and 3.1%, respectively. Compared with pre-legislation in intervention and control states, legislation was associated with adjusted difference-in-differences estimates of + 1.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.4% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, in the 6-12 months after the law and difference-in-differences estimates of + 3.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.8% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, 12-18 months after the law.

CONCLUSIONS

As breast density notification laws are considered, policymakers and clinicians should expect increases in breast imaging/biopsies. Additional research is needed on these laws' effects on cost and patient outcomes.

Long-term excess risk of breast cancer after a single breast density measurement

AIM

Breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer. As density changes across a woman's life span, we studied for how long a single density measurement taken in (post-)menopausal women remains informative.

METHODS

We used data from Singaporean women who underwent a single mammography screen at age 50-64 years. For each case with breast cancer diagnosed at screening or in the subsequent 10 years, whether screen detected or diagnosed following symptoms, two age-matched controls were selected. We studied the excess risk of breast cancer, calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with conditional logistic regression and adjusted for body mass index, associated with 26-50% and with 51-100% density compared with ≤25% density by time since screening.

RESULTS

In total, 490 women had breast cancer, of which 361 were diagnosed because of symptoms after screening. Women with 51-100% breast density had an excess risk of breast cancer that did not seem to attenuate with time. In 1-3 years after screening, the OR was 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-4.61); in 4-6 years after screening, the OR was 4.09 (95% CI: 2.21-7.58), and in 7-10 years after screening, the OR was 5.35 (95% CI: 2.57-11.15). Excess risk with a stable OR of about 2 was also observed for women with 26-50% breast density. These patterns were robust when the analyses were limited to post-menopausal women, non-users of hormonal replacement therapy and after stratification by age at density measurement.

CONCLUSION

A single breast density measurement identifies women with an excess risk of breast cancer during at least the subsequent 10 years.

Patient-Reported Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge after Breast Density Legislation Passage

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To determine awareness and knowledge of breast density and breast density legislation among women receiving routine mammography following passage of Massachusetts breast density legislation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey assessing breast density awareness and knowledge was administered to all women receiving screening mammography over two separate 1-week periods at an academic medical center following implementation of mandatory breast density notification. Survey questions queried sociodemographic factors, breast density knowledge, legislation awareness, and medical decision-making intent.

RESULTS

Of 1000 survey recipients, 338 (33.8%) returned their survey. Most women were surprised (207/338; 61.2%) to receive their breast density notification letter and unaware (302/338; 89.9%) of newly implemented breast density legislation. The majority (185/338; 54.7%) of survey respondents self-reported having dense breasts. Only 61.1% (113/185) of women with dense breasts reported that their personal breast density increased breast cancer risk, while only 60.0% (78/130) of women with non dense breasts reported that their personal breast density did not increase breast cancer risk. Significant differences between women with dense and nondense breasts were observed related to intention to follow-up with a health practitioner (118/185; 63.8% vs. 66/130; 50.8%, p = 0.03) and views on necessity of supplemental screening based on personal breast density (83/185; 45.1% vs. 20/130; 15.4%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite implementation of state breast density laws since 2009, confusion and misinformation about breast density persists among women receiving mammography screening. Innovative tools that more effectively inform patients, may be required to improve communication and patient understanding about breast density and subsequent breast care management.

A Deep Learning-Based Decision Support Tool for Precision Risk Assessment of Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon was developed to standardize mammographic reporting to assess cancer risk and facilitate the decision to biopsy. Because of substantial interobserver variability in the application of the BI-RADS lexicon, the decision to biopsy varies greatly and results in overdiagnosis and excessive biopsies. The false-positive rate from mammograms is estimated to be 7% to approximately 10% overall, but within the BI-RADS 4 category, it is greater than 70%. Therefore, we developed the Breast Cancer Risk Calculator (BRISK) to target a well-characterized and specific patient subgroup (BI-RADS 4) rather than a broad heterogeneous group in assessing breast cancer risk.

METHODS

BRISK provides a novel precise risk assessment model to reduce overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. It was developed by applying natural language processing and deep learning methods on 5,147 patient records archived in the Houston Methodist systemwide data warehouse from 2006 to May 2015, including imaging and pathology reports, mammographic images, and patient demographics. Key characteristics for BI-RADS 4 patients were collected and computed to output an index measure for biopsy recommendation that is clinically relevant and informative and improves upon the traditional BI-RADS 4 scores.

RESULTS

For the validation set, we assessed data from 1,247 BI-RADS 4 patients, including mammographic images and medical reports. The BRISK model sensitivity to predict malignancy was 100%, whereas the specificity was 74%. The total accuracy of our implemented model in BRISK was 81%. Overall area under the curve was 0.93.

CONCLUSION

BRISK for abnormal mammogram uses integrative artificial intelligence technology and has demonstrated high sensitivity in the prediction of malignancy. Prospective evaluation is under way and can lead to improvement in patient-physician engagement in making informed decisions with regard to biopsy.

Role of elastography for downgrading BI-RADS category 4a breast lesions according to risk factors

BACKGROUND

Elastography has been introduced as an additional diagnostic tool to ultrasonography (US) which helps clinicians decide whether or not to perform biopsy on US-detected lesions.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the role of strain elastography in downgrading Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4a breast lesions according to personal risk factors for breast cancer in asymptomatic women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Strain elastography features of a total of 255 asymptomatic category 4a lesions were classified as soft and not soft (intermediate and hard). Malignancy was confirmed by surgery or biopsy, and benignity was confirmed by surgery or biopsy with no change on US for at least six months. Malignancy rates of lesions with soft and not soft elastography were calculated according to the presence of risk factors.

RESULTS

Of 255 lesions, 25 (9.8%) were malignant and 230 (90.2%) were benign. Of 195 lesions in average-risk women, the malignancy rate of lesions with soft elastography was 1.5% (1/68), which was significantly lower than the 14.2% (18/127) of lesions with not soft elastography ( P = 0.004). Of 60 lesions in increased-risk women, the malignancy rate of lesions with soft elastography was 15.0% (3/20), which was not significantly different from the 7.5% (3/40) of lesions with not soft elastography ( P = 0.390).

CONCLUSION

In average-risk women, category 4a lesions with soft elastography could be followed up with US because of a low malignancy rate of 1.5%.

Impact of the California Breast Density Law on Screening Breast MR Utilization, Provider Ordering Practices, and Patient Demographics

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of California's Breast Density Law (BDL) on MRI utilization and clinician ordering practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our institutional review board approved this study that retrospectively compared the ordering pattern for screening breast MRI examinations in the 30-month period before and after the BDL was enacted. Examinations were subcategorized into those with breast density mentioned as an examination indication. Patients were classified into (1) high risk; (2) above average risk, defined but not quantified; and (3) undefined or average risk. χ² test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI utilization, use of breast density as an indication, patient demographics, and provider characteristics.

RESULTS

Screening MRI examinations with breast density as the indication increased from 8.5% (32 of 376) to 21.1% (136 of 646, P < .0001) after BDL. When high-risk patients were excluded, the increase was from 8% to 17.2% (P < .0001). Patient demographics before and after BDL were, by race: white 71.8% versus 71.2%; Asian 6.4% versus 10.5%; black 3.7% versus 3.1%; American Indian 0.3% versus 1.4%; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.6% versus 1.7%; by ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino 10.6% versus 7.9%. Before and after BDL, predominantly female providers (81.4% and 77.4%, P = not significant [NS]) and specialists (62.5% and 63.5%, P = NS) ordered the majority of breast MRI examinations compared with males (18.6% and 22.6%, P = NS).

CONCLUSION

Screening breast MRI utilization for non-high-risk women more than doubled after the California BDL went into effect. BDL has had an impact on MRI utilization, and its clinical value for changing outcomes deserves further study.

Comparison of Clinical and Pathologic Characteristics of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Detected on Mammography versus Ultrasound Only in Asymptomatic Patients

The main purpose of this study was to retropectively compare the clinical and pathologic characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected on mammography and ultrasound (US) in asymptomatic patients. From February 2014 to September 2016, 236 asymptomatic patients with primary pure DCIS and dense breasts were included. The patients were classified into two groups. The mammography group (n = 165) included patients with DCIS detected on mammography, and the US group (n = 71) included patients with DCIS detected on US only. Clinicopathologic characteristics were compared between the two groups. Subgroup analyses were performed with a cutoff age of 50 y and a cutoff tumor size of 20 mm. In 236 patients, younger age, smaller tumor size, low nuclear grade, no comedo necrosis and progesterone receptor positivity were observed more in the US group (p < 0.05). HER2 and Ki67 positivity was observed more frequently in the mammography group (p < 0.05). Similar results were obtained in 168 patients with DCIS <20 mm and in patients ≥50 y. In patients <50 y, smaller tumor size, low nuclear grade and no comedo necrosis were observed significantly more often in the US group. DCIS in the US group significantly more often manifested low nuclear grade, no comedo necrosis and hormone receptor positivity, whereas HER2 and Ki67 positivity was observed significantly more often in the mammography group.

Between-Race Differences in Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Before and After Breast Density Notification Law

Guidelines recommend supplemental breast cancer screening for women at increased breast cancer risk; however, the passage of breast density notification laws may lead to supplemental screening that is incongruent with women's risk. We examined supplemental screening (ie, MRI, ultrasound, or tomosynthesis within 6 months of screening mammogram) among a sample of 2,764 African American (AA) and 691 European American (EA) women with negative or benign screening mammograms for whom we had data from both before and after implementation of breast density notification laws in the state of Michigan. Results indicated a 5-fold increase (from 0.14% to 0.7% of women) in supplemental screening among screen-negative women after passage of the law, driven in large part by an increase in supplemental screening among AA women. Breast density was more predictive of supplemental screening and had a marginally greater explanatory role in between-race differences in supplemental screening after passage of the law. Subgroup analyses (n = 250) indicated that whereas 5-year breast cancer risk was positively associated with supplemental screening before the law and negatively associated after the law for EA women, 5-year risk was not associated with supplemental screening either before or after passage of the law for AA women. Our findings suggest that whereas passage of the breast density notification laws may have motivated supplemental screening among AA women in particular, it lessened the consideration of breast cancer risk in supplemental screening decision making.

Follow-up interval for probably benign breast lesions on screening ultrasound in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts

Background Women at high risk for breast cancer and women at average risk have different pretest probabilities. Probably benign lesions on screening ultrasound (US) should be assessed and managed differently for these two risk groups. Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of short-term follow-up for probably benign lesions on screening US in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts. Material and Methods A total of 445 women at average risk for breast cancer with probably benign lesions on screening US, dense breasts, and negative or benign mammography results were included. Women were classified into the six-month group (n = 345) or 12-month group (n = 100) according to when the first follow-up was performed (3-9 months or 9-15 months). The cancer detection rate, frequencies of newly developed lesions and progressed lesions, and biopsy rate were compared. Results There were no malignancies from three to 15 months. Three cancers newly developed after 15 months. One was a 3-mm ductal carcinoma in situ and two were 10-mm and 18-mm invasive ductal carcinoma without lymph node metastasis. The frequency of newly developed lesions and progressed lesions and biopsy rate were not significantly different between the six-month and 12-month groups ( P = 0.320, 0.621, and >0.999). Conclusion A follow-up at 12 months can be considered for probably benign lesions on screening US in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts. However, a large series prospective study is needed before clinical application.

Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mammography is less effective in detecting cancer in dense than in fatty breasts.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic search in PubMed to identify studies on women with dense breasts who underwent screening with mammography supplemented with ultrasound. A meta-analysis was undertaken on the proportion of cancers detected only by ultrasound, out of all screen-detected cancers, and the proportion of women with negative mammography who were referred for assessment following ultrasound screening.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. The proportion of total cancers detected only by ultrasound was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31), consistent with an approximately 40% increase in the detection of cancers compared to mammography. In the studied populations, this translated into an additional 3.8 (95% CI: 3.4-4.2) screen-detected cases per 1000 mammography-negative women. About 13% (32/248) of cancers were in situ from 17 studies with information on this subgroup. Ultrasound approximately doubled the referral for assessment in three studies with these data.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have consistently shown an increased detection of breast cancer by supplementary ultrasound screening. An inclusion of supplementary ultrasound into routine screening will need to consider the availability of ultrasound and diagnostic assessment capacities.

Interpretation Time Using a Concurrent-Read Computer-Aided Detection System for Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breast Tissue

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of screening automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for women with dense breast tissue without and with use of a recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective observer performance study, 18 radiologists interpreted a cancer-enriched set (i.e., cancer prevalence higher than in the original screening cohort) of 185 screening ABUS studies (52 with and 133 without breast cancer). These studies were from a large cohort of ABUS-screened patients interpreted as BI-RADS density C or D. Each reader interpreted each case twice in a counterbalanced study, once without the CAD system and once with it, separated by 4 weeks. For each case, each reader identified abnormal findings and reported BI-RADS assessment category and level of suspicion for breast cancer. Interpretation time was recorded. Level of suspicion data were compared to evaluate diagnostic accuracy by means of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method of jackknife with ANOVA ROC analysis. Interpretation times were compared by ANOVA.

RESULTS

The ROC AUC was 0.848 with the CAD system, compared with 0.828 without it, for a difference of 0.020 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.051) and was statistically noninferior to the AUC without the CAD system with respect to a margin of -0.05 (p = 0.000086). The mean interpretation time was 3 minutes 33 seconds per case without the CAD system and 2 minutes 24 seconds with it, for a difference of 1 minute 9 seconds saved (95% CI, 44-93 seconds; p = 0.000014), or a reduction in interpretation time to 67% of the time without the CAD system.

CONCLUSION

Use of the concurrent-read CAD system for interpretation of screening ABUS studies of women with dense breast tissue who do not have symptoms is expected to make interpretation significantly faster and produce noninferior diagnostic accuracy compared with interpretation without the CAD system.

The Role of Ultrasound in Screening Dense Breasts-A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for Implementation

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. Estimates indicate a nearly 40% breast cancer mortality reduction when screening women annually starting at age 40. Although mammography is well known to be a powerful screening tool in the detection of early breast cancer, it is imperfect, particularly for women with dense breasts. In women with dense breast tissue, the sensitivity of mammography is reduced. Additionally, women with dense breasts have an increased risk of developing breast cancer while mammography has a lower sensitivity. Screening ultrasound, both handheld and automated, is effective in detecting mammographically occult cancer in women with dense tissue. Studies have shown that ultrasound significantly increases detection of clinically important, small, largely invasive, node-negative cancers. The purpose of this review article is to summarize the literature to date regarding screening breast ultrasound, emphasizing differences in cancer detection in high risk and intermediate risk women, and to discuss practical ways to implement screening ultrasound in clinical practice, including automated whole breast ultrasound, as a viable solution to the increasing need for additional screening.

Breast MRI as a Problem-solving Study in the Evaluation of BI-RADS Categories 3 and 4 Microcalcifications: Is it Worth Performing?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the utility of problem-solving breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for mammographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 3 and 4 microcalcifications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, 138 women with 146 areas of categories 3 and 4 microcalcifications without sonographic correlates underwent breast MRI and had a stereotactic core biopsy using an 11-gauge needle or follow-up at least for 24 months. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated on the basis of BI-RADS category, with categories 1-3 being considered benign and categories 4 and 5 being considered malignant.

RESULTS

Twenty-four cases (16.4%) were malignant (18 ductal carcinoma in situ, 6 invasive). MRI increased PPV and specificity from 43% to 68% and from 80% to 93% (P = .054 and .005) compared to mammography. Within 102 category 3 microcalcifications, 5 carcinomas were assessed correctly as category 4 by MRI. Within 44 category 4 microcalcifications, a correct diagnosis was made by MRI in 77% (34 of 44) as opposed to 43% (19 of 44) by mammography, and 80% (20 of 25) of unnecessary biopsies could have been avoided. Within the 24 carcinomas, 5 were negative at MRI. MRI-negative carcinomas have a significantly higher possibility of being low grade (ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive) (P = .0362).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast MRI has the potential to improve the diagnosis of category 3 or 4 microcalcifications and could alter indications for biopsy. Breast MRI could help predict the presence or absence of higher-grade carcinoma for category 3 or 4 microcalcifications.