Screening MRI Does Not Increase Cancer Detection or Result in an Earlier Stage at Diagnosis for Patients with High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Propensity Score Analysis

Following the High-Risk Patient: Breast Cancer Risk-Based Screening

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer occurring in women in the USA today, and accounts for more than 40,000 deaths annually (Giaquinto in CA Cancer J Clin 72: 524-541, 2022). While breast cancer survival has improved over the past decades, incidence has increased, and diagnoses are being made at younger ages. This emphasizes the importance of risk evaluation, accurate prediction, and effective mitigation and risk reduction strategies. Enhanced screening can help detect cancers at an earlier stage, thus improving morbidity and mortality. This review addresses the recognition of women at high-risk for BC and monitoring strategies for those at high risk.

Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density

BACKGROUND

Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.

METHODS

We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy.

RESULTS

Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone.

CONCLUSION

MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers.

Update on Lobular Neoplasia

Lobular neoplasia (LN) is a histopathologic entity that encompasses both lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH). Management of LN is known to be variable and institutionally dependent. The variability in approach after a diagnosis of LN at percutaneous breast biopsy derives in part from heterogeneity in the literature, resulting in a range of reported upgrade rates to malignancy after initial identification at percutaneous biopsy, and also from historical shifts in understanding of the natural history of LN. It has become increasingly recognized that not all LN is the same and that distinct variants of LN such as pleomorphic LCIS and florid LCIS have distinct natural histories and distinct likelihoods of upgrade to malignancy. In addition, it is also increasingly understood that appropriate management of LN relies on scrupulous radiologic-pathologic correlation. This review details the imaging features and histopathologic nature of ALH, classic-type LCIS, and the LCIS variants; addresses changes in the historical understanding of this entity contributing to confusion regarding its management; and discusses the importance of performing radiologic-pathologic correlation after percutaneous biopsy to help guide appropriate management steps when LN is encountered. In addition to the short-term implications of an LN diagnosis in terms of upgrade and surgical outcomes, the long-term implications of an LN diagnosis regarding risk of developing a later breast cancer are examined. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Breast Cancer: Impact of New Treatments?

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatment has seen tremendous progress since the early 1980s, with the first findings of new chemotherapy and hormone therapies. Screening started in the same period.

METHODS

A review of population data (SEER and the literature) shows an increase in recurrence-free survival until 2000 and it stagnates afterwards.

RESULTS

Over the period 1980-2000, the 15% survival gain was presented by pharma as a contribution of new molecules. The contribution of screening during that same period was not implemented by them, although screening has been accepted as a routine procedure in the States since the 1980s and everywhere else since 2000.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of breast cancer outcome has largely focused on drugs, whereas other factors, such as screening, prevention, biologics, and genetics, were largely neglected. More attention should now be paid to examining the strategy based on realistic global data.