Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density

Importance

Information on long-term benefits and harms of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with or without supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed for clinical and policy discussions, particularly for patients with dense breasts.

Objective

To project long-term population-based outcomes for breast cancer mammography screening strategies (DBT or digital mammography) with or without supplemental MRI by breast density.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Collaborative modeling using 3 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation models informed by US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. Simulated women born in 1980 with average breast cancer risk were included. Modeling analyses were conducted from January 2020 to December 2023.

Intervention

Annual or biennial mammography screening with or without supplemental MRI by breast density starting at ages 40, 45, or 50 years through age 74 years.

Main outcomes and Measures

Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive recall and false-positive biopsy recommendations per 1000 simulated women followed-up from age 40 years to death summarized as means and ranges across models.

Results

Biennial DBT screening for all simulated women started at age 50 vs 40 years averted 7.4 vs 8.5 breast cancer deaths, respectively, and led to 884 vs 1392 false-positive recalls and 151 vs 221 false-positive biopsy recommendations, respectively. Biennial digital mammography had similar deaths averted and slightly more false-positive test results than DBT screening. Adding MRI for women with extremely dense breasts to biennial DBT screening for women aged 50 to 74 years increased deaths averted (7.6 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (919 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (180 vs 151). Extending supplemental MRI to women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts further increased deaths averted (8.0 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (1088 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (343 vs 151). The same strategy for women aged 40 to 74 years averted 9.5 deaths but led to 1850 false-positive recalls and 628 false-positive biopsy recommendations. Annual screening modestly increased estimated deaths averted but markedly increased estimated false-positive results.

Conclusions and relevance

In this model-based comparative effectiveness analysis, supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts added to DBT screening led to greater benefits and increased harms. The balance of this trade-off for supplemental MRI use was more favorable when MRI was targeted to women with extremely dense breasts who comprise approximately 10% of the population.

Role of Supplemental Breast MRI in Screening Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts at average or increased risk.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched 1995-2022. Articles were included if women received breast MRI following 2D or tomosynthesis mammography. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Analysis used independent studies from the articles. Fixed-effect meta-analytic summaries were estimated for predefined groups (PROSPERO: 230277).

RESULTS

Eighteen primary research articles (24 studies) were identified in women aged 19-87 years. Breast density was heterogeneously or extremely dense (BI-RADS C/D) in 15/18 articles and extremely dense (BI-RADS D) in 3/18 articles. Twelve of 18 articles reported on increased-risk populations. Following 21 440 negative mammographic examinations, 288/320 cancers were detected by MRI. Substantial variation was observed between studies in MRI cancer detection rate, partly associated with prevalent vs incident MRI exams (prevalent: 16.6/1000 exams, 12 studies; incident: 6.8/1000 exams, 7 studies). MRI had high sensitivity for mammographically occult cancer (20 studies with at least 1-year follow-up). In 5/18 articles with sufficient data to estimate relative MRI detection rate, approximately 2 in 3 cancers were detected by MRI (66.3%, 95% CI, 56.3%-75.5%) but not mammography. Positive predictive value was higher for more recent studies. Risk of bias was low in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Supplemental breast MRI following negative mammography in women with dense breasts has breast cancer detection rates of ~16.6/1000 at prevalent and ~6.8/1000 at incident MRI exams, considering both high and average risk settings.

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced breast MRI and recently also contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are available for breast imaging. The aim of the current overview is to explore existing evidence and ongoing challenges of contrast-enhanced breast imaging.

METHODS

This narrative provides an introduction to the contrast-enhanced breast imaging modalities breast MRI and CEM. Underlying principle, techniques and BI-RADS reporting of both techniques are described and compared, and the following indications and ongoing challenges are discussed: problem-solving, high-risk screening, supplemental screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue, breast implants, neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) response monitoring, MRI-guided and CEM- guided biopsy.

RESULTS

Technique and reporting for breast MRI are standardised, for the newer CEM standardisation is in progress. Similarly, compared to other modalities, breast MRI is well established as superior for problem-solving, screening women at high risk, screening women with extremely dense breast tissue or with implants; and for monitoring response to NST. Furthermore, MRI-guided biopsy is a reliable technique with low long-term false negative rates. For CEM, data is as yet either absent or limited, but existing results in these settings are promising.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging achieves highest diagnostic performance and should be considered essential. Of the two contrast-enhanced modalities, evidence of breast MRI superiority is ample, and preliminary results on CEM are promising, yet CEM warrants further study.

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

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Challenges and Changes of the Breast Cancer Screening Paradigm

Since four decades mammography is used for early breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women and still remains the gold standard imaging modality. However, population screening programs can be personalized and women can be divided into different groups based on risk factors and personal preferences. The availability of new and evolving imaging modalities, for example, digital breast tomosynthesis, dynamic-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abbreviated MRI protocols, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography leads to new challenges and perspectives regarding the feasibility and potential harms of breast cancer screening. The aim of this review is to discuss the current guidelines for different risk groups, to analyze the recent published studies about the diagnostic performance of the imaging modalities and to discuss new developments and future perspectives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI versus X-ray mammography in women with different degrees of breast density

BACKGROUND

Detection of breast cancer in women with high breast densities is a clinical challenge.

PURPOSE

To study the influence of different degrees of breast density on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) versus X-ray mammography (XRM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed an additional analysis of two large Phase III clinical trials (G1; G2) which included women with histologically proven breast cancers, called "index cancers." Additional cancers were detected during image reading. We compared the sensitivity of CE-BMRI and XRM in women with different breast densities (ACR A→D; Version 5). For each study, six blinded readers evaluated the images. Results are given as the "Median Reader."

RESULTS

A total of 774 patients were included, 169 had additional cancers. While sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting all index cancers was independent of breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 83%→83%; G2: 91%→91%) the sensitivity of XRM declined (ACR A→D) (G1: 79%→62%; G2: 82%→64%). Thus, the sensitivity difference between both imaging modalities in ACR A breasts of 3% (G1) and 9% (G2) increased to 21% (G1) and 26% (G2) in ACR D breasts. Sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting at least one additional cancer increased with increasing breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 50%→73%, G2: 57%→81%). XRM's sensitivity decreased (G1: 34%→20%) or remained stable (G2: 24%→25%).

CONCLUSION

CE-BMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity compared to XRM.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely adopted in breast imaging in both screening and diagnostic settings. The benefits of DBT are well established. Compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM), DBT preferentially increases detection of invasive cancers without increased detection of in-situ cancers, maximizing identification of biologically significant disease, while mitigating overdiagnosis. The higher sensitivity of DBT for architectural distortion allows increased diagnosis of invasive cancers overall and particularly improves the visibility of invasive lobular cancers. Implementation of DBT has decreased the number of recalls for false-positive findings at screening, contributing to improved specificity at diagnostic evaluation. Integration of DBT in diagnostic examinations has also resulted in an increased percentage of biopsies with positive results, improving diagnostic confidence. Although individual DBT examinations have a longer interpretation time compared with that for DM, DBT has streamlined the diagnostic workflow and minimized the need for short-term follow-up examinations, redistributing much-needed time resources to screening. Yet DBT has limitations. Although improvements in cancer detection and recall rates are seen for patients in a large spectrum of age groups and breast density categories, these benefits are minimal in women with extremely dense breast tissue, and the extent of these benefits may vary by practice environment and by geographic location. Although DBT allows detection of more invasive cancers than does DM, its incremental yield is lower than that of US and MRI. Current understanding of the biologic profile of DBT-detected cancers is limited. Whether DBT improves breast cancer-specific mortality remains a key question that requires further investigation. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer

Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection but is currently limited to screening women at high risk due to limited specificity and test accessibility. However, specificity of MR imaging improves with successive rounds of screening, and abbreviated approaches have the potential to increase access and decrease cost. There is growing evidence to support supplemental MR imaging in moderate-risk women, and current guidelines continue to evolve. Functional imaging has the potential to maximize survival benefit of screening. Leveraging MR imaging as a possible primary screening tool is therefore also being investigated in average-risk women.

Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Background Among breast cancer survivors, detecting a breast cancer when it is asymptomatic (rather than symptomatic) improves survival; thus, imaging surveillance in these patients is warranted. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is used for screening, but data on DBT for surveillance in this high-risk population are limited. Purpose To determine whether DBT leads to improved screening performance metrics when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors. Materials and Methods In this study, screening mammograms obtained in breast cancer survivors before and after DBT implementation were retrospectively reviewed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 for the DBT group). Mammograms were interpreted by breast imaging radiologists with the assistance of computer-aided detection. Performance metrics and tumor characteristics between the groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019 and 22 887 mammographic examinations, respectively, in 8170 women (mean age, 62 years ± 12 [standard deviation]). In the DBT group, the abnormal interpretation rate was lower (5.8% [1331 of 22 887 examinations] vs 6.2% [563 of 9019 examinations]; odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.91; P = .001) and specificity was higher (95.0% [21 502 of 22 644 examinations] vs 94.7% [8424 of 8891 examinations]; OR, 1.23; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.41; P = .003) than in the digital mammography group. The cancer detection rates did not differ (8.3 per 1000 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; P = .07). The proportions of screening-detected invasive cancers, versus in situ cancers, were similar (74% [140 of 189 cancers] in the DBT group vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; P = .69). Of 86 interval cancers, 58% (50 of 86 cancers) manifested with symptoms, and 33% (28 of 86 cancers) were detected at screening MRI. Conclusion Among breast cancer survivors, screening with digital breast tomosynthesis led to fewer false-positive results and higher specificity but did not affect cancer detection. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Application of the Kaiser score to increase diagnostic accuracy in equivocal lesions on diagnostic mammograms referred for MR mammography

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to interpret MR mammography (MRM) using the Kaiser scores for equivocal or inconclusive lesions on mammography (MG).

METHODS

Retrospective IRB-approved evaluation of 3623 MG for which MRM was deployed as a problem-solving tool, after inclusion-exclusion criteria were met. Three readers with different levels of experience assigned a final score from 1 to 11 based on the previously established tree classification system. Area under the curve (AUC) derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the overall diagnostic performance for all lesions and separately for mass and non-mass enhancement. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio values were obtained at different cut-off values of >4, > 5, and > 8 to rule in and rule out malignancy.

RESULT

Histopathology of 183 mass and 133 non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions show benign etiology in 95 and malignant in 221. The AUC was 0.796 [0.851 for mass and 0.715 for NME]. Applying the Kaiser score upgraded 202 lesions with correct prediction in 77 %, and downgraded 28 lesions with correct prediction in 60.8 %. Using a score <5 instead of <4 to rule out malignancy improved our diagnostic ability to correctly identify 100 % benign lesions. Applying Kaiser score correctly downgraded 60.8 % (17/28) lesions; thus avoiding biopsies in these. Using a high cut-off value>8 to rule-in malignancy, we correctly identified 59.7 % of lesions with 80 % specificity and positive likelihood ratio of 3.

CONCLUSION

The Kaiser score has clinical translation benefits when used as a problem-solving tool for inconclusive MG findings.

Abbreviated Screening Breast MRI in Women at Higher-than-Average Risk for Breast Cancer with Prior Normal Full Protocol MRI

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of abbreviated screening breast MRI (ABMR) versus full protocol MRI (FPMR) in women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer with a prior normal FPMR.

METHODS

ABMR was performed on higher-than-average-risk women who had a prior normal FPMR. ABMR protocol consisted of short inversion time inversion recovery imaging, precontrast, and two early postcontrast sequences acquired in under 10 minutes. Retrospective review of ABMR examinations performed from July 2016 to July 2018 was compared with a control group who underwent routine screening with FPMR who had a prior normal FPMR performed from July 2014 to June 2016. Screening outcome metrics were calculated and compared, adjusting for differences in patient demographics.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 481 ABMR examinations, while the control group included 440 FPMR studies. There was no significant difference in the abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) or cancer detection rate (CDR) for the ABMR versus the FPMR group (AIR 6.0% vs 6.8% respectively, odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-1.5, P = 0.73; CDR 8.3 vs 11 cancers detected per 1000 examinations respectively, OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.20-2.7, P = 0.64). The PPV2 and PPV3 for the ABMR group was 19% and 21% versus 16% and 16% for the FPMR group, with no statistical difference. Sensitivity was 100% in each group with no interval cancers. There was no difference in specificity between the ABMR and FPMR groups, 93% versus 94%, respectively (P = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

ABMR may be used to screen higher-than-average-risk women with a prior normal FPMR as outcome metrics are equivalent to FPMR.

Impact of full field digital mammography diagnosis for female patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical studies have reported that full field digital mammography (FFDM) can be used for diagnosis on breast cancer (BC) with promising outcome results. However, no study systematically investigates its diagnostic impact on female patients with BC. Thus, this systematic review will assess the accurate of FFDM diagnosis on BC.

METHODS

In this study, we will perform a comprehensive search strategy in the databases as follows: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, PSYCINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data from inception to February 28, 2019. All case-controlled studies exploring the impacts of FFDM diagnosis for patients BC will be fully considered for inclusion in this study. Two authors will independently scan the title and abstracts for relevance, and assess full texts for inclusion. They will also independently extract data and will assess methodological qualify for each included study by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RevMan V.5.3 software (London, UK) and Stata V.12.0 software (Texas, USA) will be used to pool the data and to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of FFDM will be used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM for the diagnosis of patients with BC.

CONCLUSION

Its findings will provide latest evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM in female patients with BC.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019125338.