Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Auditing Abbreviated Breast MR Imaging: Clinical Considerations and Implications

Abbreviated breast MR (AB-MR) imaging is a relatively new breast imaging tool, which maintains diagnostic accuracy while reducing image times compared with full-protocol breast MR (FP-MR) imaging. Breast imaging audits involve calculating individual and organizational metrics, which can be compared with established benchmarks, providing a standard against which performance can be measured. Unlike FP-MR imaging, there are no established benchmarks for AB-MR imaging but studies demonstrate comparable performance for cancer detection rate, positive predictive value 3, sensitivity, and specificity with T2. We review the basics of performing an audit, including strategies to implement if benchmarks are not being met.

Optimising the diagnostic accuracy of First post-contrAst SubtracTed breast MRI (FAST MRI) through interpretation-training: a multicentre e-learning study, mapping the learning curve of NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers using an enriched dataset

BACKGROUND

Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast cancer. This study aimed to optimise diagnostic accuracy through the adaptation of interpretation-training.

METHODS

A FAST MRI interpretation-training programme (short presentations and guided hands-on workstation teaching) was adapted to provide additional training during the assessment task (interpretation of an enriched dataset of 125 FAST MRI scans) by giving readers feedback about the true outcome of each scan immediately after each scan was interpreted (formative assessment). Reader interaction with the FAST MRI scans used developed software (RiViewer) that recorded reader opinions and reading times for each scan. The training programme was additionally adapted for remote e-learning delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset by multiple readers.

RESULTS

43 mammogram readers completed the training, 22 who interpreted breast MRI in their clinical role (Group 1) and 21 who did not (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 81-84%; 1994/2408), specificity 94% (95%CI 93-94%; 7806/8338), readers' agreement with the true outcome kappa = 0.75 (95%CI 0.74-0.77) and diagnostic odds ratio = 70.67 (95%CI 61.59-81.09). Group 1 readers showed similar sensitivity (84%) to Group 2 (82% p = 0.14), but slightly higher specificity (94% v. 93%, p = 0.001). Concordance with the ground truth increased significantly with the number of FAST MRI scans read through the formative assessment task (p = 0.002) but by differing amounts depending on whether or not a reader had previously attended FAST MRI training (interaction p = 0.02). Concordance with the ground truth was significantly associated with reading batch size (p = 0.02), tending to worsen when more than 50 scans were read per batch. Group 1 took a median of 56 seconds (range 8-47,466) to interpret each FAST MRI scan compared with 78 (14-22,830, p < 0.0001) for Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of immediate feedback to mammogram readers during the assessment test set reading task increased specificity for FAST MRI interpretation and achieved high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal reading-batch size for FAST MRI was 50 reads per batch. Trial registration (25/09/2019): ISRCTN16624917.

Performance of an ultra-fast deep-learning accelerated MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer compared to a standard multiparametric protocol

OBJECTIVES

To establish and evaluate an ultra-fast MRI screening protocol for prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to the standard multiparametric (mp) protocol, reducing scan time and maintaining adequate diagnostic performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective single-center study included consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa between December 2022 and March 2023. A PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI protocol was acquired in a 3 T scanner (scan time: 25 min 45 sec). In addition, two deep-learning (DL) accelerated sequences (T2- and diffusion-weighted) were acquired, serving as a screening protocol (scan time: 3 min 28 sec). Two readers evaluated image quality and the probability of PCa regarding PI-RADSv2.1 scores in two sessions. The diagnostic performance of the screening protocol with mpMRI serving as the reference standard was derived. Inter- and intra-reader agreements were evaluated using weighted kappa statistics.

RESULTS

We included 77 patients with 97 lesions (mean age: 66 years; SD: 7.7). Diagnostic performance of the screening protocol was excellent with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%/100% and 89%/98% (cut-off ≥ PI-RADS 4) for reader 1 (R1) and reader 2 (R2), respectively. Mean image quality was 3.96 (R1) and 4.35 (R2) for the standard protocol vs. 4.74 and 4.57 for the screening protocol (p < 0.05). Inter-reader agreement was moderate (κ: 0.55) for the screening protocol and substantial (κ: 0.61) for the multiparametric protocol.

CONCLUSION

The ultra-fast screening protocol showed similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality compared to the mpMRI in under 15% of scan time, improving efficacy and enabling the implementation of screening protocols in clinical routine.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The ultra-fast protocol enables examinations without contrast administration, drastically reducing scan time to 3.5 min with similar diagnostic performance and better imaging quality. This facilitates patient-friendly, efficient examinations and addresses the conflict of increasing demand for examinations at currently exhausted capacities.

KEY POINTS

Time-consuming MRI protocols are in conflict with an expected increase in examinations required for prostate cancer screening. An ultra-fast MRI protocol shows similar performance and better image quality compared to the standard protocol. Deep-learning acceleration facilitates efficient and patient-friendly examinations, thus improving prostate cancer screening capacity.

Breast Radiologists' Perceptions on the Detection and Management of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Most Agree Imaging Beyond Mammography Is Warranted

OBJECTIVE

To determine breast radiologists' confidence in detecting invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) on mammography and the perceived need for additional imaging in screening and preoperative settings.

METHODS

A 16-item anonymized survey was developed, and IRB exemption obtained, by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and the Lobular Breast Cancer Alliance. The survey was emailed to 2946 radiologist SBI members on February 15, 2023. The survey recorded demographics, perceived modality-specific sensitivity for ILC to the nearest decile, and opinions on diagnosing ILC in screening and staging imaging. Five-point Likert scales were used (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

RESULTS

Response rate was 12.4% (366/2946). Perceived median (interquartile range) modality-specific sensitivities for ILC were MRI 90% (80-90), contrast-enhanced mammography 80% (70-90), molecular breast imaging 80% (60-90), digital breast tomosynthesis 70% (60-80), US 60% (50-80), and 2D mammography 50% (30-60). Only 25% (85/340) respondents were confident in detecting ILC on screening mammography in dense breasts, while 67% (229/343) were confident if breasts were nondense. Most agreed that supplemental screening is needed to detect ILC in women with dense breasts (272/344, 79%) or a personal history of ILC (248/341, 73%), with 34% (118/334) indicating that supplemental screening would also benefit women with nondense breasts. Most agreed that additional imaging is needed to evaluate extent of disease in women with newly diagnosed ILC, regardless of breast density (dense 320/329, 97%; nondense 263/329, 80%).

CONCLUSION

Most breast radiologists felt that additional imaging beyond mammography is needed to more confidently screen for and stage ILC.

Optimizing the Patient Experience for Women With Disabilities in the Breast Imaging Clinic

While there are varying opinions on what age to begin and at what interval to perform breast cancer screening, screening mammography is recommended for all women irrespective of disability. Unfortunately, women with disabilities are more likely to present with later-stage disease and higher mortality owing to the barriers for more widespread screening in this population. Women with disabilities may experience challenges accessing breast imaging services, and imaging centers may have suboptimal facilities and staff who are inexperienced in caring for this population. Efforts to increase accessibility by employing universal design to increase ease of access and provide training to improve the patient experience will go far to improve outcomes for patients with disabilities. To date, there exists no comprehensive guidance on how to improve breast cancer screening programs for women with disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to review barriers to screening faced by patients with disabilities, describe strategies to overcome these barriers, and provide guidance for radiologists and referring providers in selecting the best exam for the individual patient.

Benign Breast Disease and Breast Cancer Risk in the Percutaneous Biopsy Era

Importance

Benign breast disease (BBD) comprises approximately 75% of breast biopsy diagnoses. Surgical biopsy specimens diagnosed as nonproliferative (NP), proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are associated with increasing breast cancer (BC) risk; however, knowledge is limited on risk associated with percutaneously diagnosed BBD.

Objectives

To estimate BC risk associated with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era irrespective of surgical biopsy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this retrospective cohort study, BBD biopsy specimens collected from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2013, from patients with BBD at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed by 2 pathologists masked to outcomes. Women were followed up from 6 months after biopsy until censoring, BC diagnosis, or December 31, 2021.

Exposure

Benign breast disease classification and multiplicity by pathology panel review.

Main Outcomes

The main outcome was diagnosis of BC overall and stratified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive BC. Risk for presence vs absence of BBD lesions was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Risk in patients with BBD compared with female breast cancer incidence rates from the Iowa Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were estimated.

Results

Among 4819 female participants, median age was 51 years (IQR, 43-62 years). Median follow-up was 10.9 years (IQR, 7.7-14.2 years) for control individuals without BC vs 6.6 years (IQR, 3.7-10.1 years) for patients with BC. Risk was higher in the cohort with BBD than in SEER data: BC overall (standard incidence ratio [SIR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.76-2.17), invasive BC (SIR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), and DCIS (SIR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.54-3.77). The SIRs increased with increasing BBD severity (1.42 [95% CI, 1.19-1.71] for NP, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.88-2.54] for PDWA, and 3.91 [95% CI, 2.97-5.14] for AH), comparable to surgical cohorts with BBD. Risk also increased with increasing lesion multiplicity (SIR: 2.40 [95% CI, 2.06-2.79] for ≥3 foci of NP, 3.72 [95% CI, 2.31-5.99] for ≥3 foci of PDWA, and 5.29 [95% CI, 3.37-8.29] for ≥3 foci of AH). Ten-year BC cumulative incidence was 4.3% for NP, 6.6% for PDWA, and 14.6% for AH vs an expected population cumulative incidence of 2.9%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this contemporary cohort study of women diagnosed with BBD in the percutaneous biopsy era, overall risk of BC was increased vs the general population (DCIS and invasive cancer combined), similar to that in historical BBD cohorts. Development and validation of pathologic classifications including both BBD severity and multiplicity may enable improved BC risk stratification.

Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Clinical Trials Updated for 2023

There are many active or recently completed breast cancer screening and treatment trials in 2023 that have the potential to fundamentally change the way breast radiologists practice medicine. Breast cancer screening trials may provide evidence to support supplemental screening beyond mammography to include US, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast MRI. Furthermore, there are multiple efforts to support risk-adaptive screening strategies that would personalize screening modalities, frequencies, and ages of initiation. For breast cancer treatment, aims to reduce overtreatment may provide nonsurgical treatment options for women with low-risk breast cancer. Breast radiologists must be familiar with the study designs, major inclusion and exclusion criteria, and principal endpoints in order to determine when and how the study results should influence clinical care. As multidisciplinary team members, breast radiologists will have major roles in the success or failure of these trials as they transition from research to actual clinical practice.

MRI Gadolinium-Based Contrast Media: Meeting Radiological, Clinical, and Environmental Needs

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are routinely used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They are essential for choosing the most appropriate medical or surgical strategy for patients with serious pathologies, particularly in oncologic, inflammatory, and cardiovascular diseases. However, GBCAs have been associated with an increased risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with renal failure, as well as the possibility of deposition in the brain, bones, and other organs, even in patients with normal renal function. Research is underway to reduce the quantity of gadolinium injected, without compromising image quality and diagnosis. The next generation of GBCAs will enable a reduction in the gadolinium dose administered. Gadopiclenol is the first of this new generation of GBCAs, with high relaxivity, thus having the potential to reduce the gadolinium dose while maintaining good in vivo stability due to its macrocyclic structure. High-stability and high-relaxivity GBCAs will be one of the solutions for reducing the dose of gadolinium to be administered in clinical practice, while the development of new technologies, including optimization of MRI acquisitions, new contrast mechanisms, and artificial intelligence may help reduce the need for GBCAs. Future solutions may involve a combination of next-generation GBCAs and image-processing techniques to optimize diagnosis and treatment planning while minimizing exposure to gadolinium. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Abbreviated MRI Protocols in the Abdomen and Pelvis

Abbreviated MRI (AMRI) protocols rely on the acquisition of a limited number of sequences tailored to a specific question. The main objective of AMRI protocols is to reduce exam duration and costs, while maintaining an acceptable diagnostic performance. AMRI is of increasing interest in the radiology community; however, challenges limiting clinical adoption remain. In this review, we will address main abdominal and pelvic applications of AMRI in the liver, pancreas, kidney, and prostate, including diagnostic performance, pitfalls, limitations, and cost effectiveness will also be discussed. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3.

Clinical and Imaging Features of MRI Screen-Detected Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Supplemental screening with breast MRI is recommended annually for patients who have greater than 20% lifetime risk for breast cancer. While there is robust data regarding features of mammographic screen-detected breast cancers, there is limited data regarding MRI-screen-detected cancers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Screening breast MRIs performed between August 1, 2016 and July 30, 2022 identified 50 screen-detected breast cancers in 47 patients. Clinical and imaging features of all eligible cancers were recorded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 50 MRI-screen detected cancers were identified in 47 patients. The majority of MRI-screen detected cancers (32/50, 64%) were invasive. Pathology revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 36% (18/50), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 52% (26/50), invasive lobular carcinoma in 10% (5/50), and angiosarcoma in 2% (1/50). The majority of patients (43/47, 91%) were stage 0 or 1 at diagnosis and there were no breast cancer-related deaths during the follow-up periods. Cancers presented as masses in 50% (25/50), nonmass enhancement in 48% (25/50), and a focus in 2% (1/50). DCIS was more likely to present as nonmass enhancement (94.4%, 17/18), whereas invasive cancers were more likely to present as masses (75%, 24/32) (P < .001). All cancers that were stage 2 at diagnosis were detected either on a baseline exam or more than 4 years since the prior MRI exam.

CONCLUSION

MRI screen-detected breast cancers were most often invasive cancers. Cancers detected by MRI screening had an excellent prognosis in our study population. Invasive cancers most commonly presented as a mass.

Revisiting Screening in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer

Women with a family history (FH) of breast cancer and without known genetic susceptibility represent a unique population whose lifetime probability of developing breast cancer varies widely depending on familial factors, breast density, and the risk assessment tool used. Recently updated guidelines from the American College of Radiology recommend supplemental annual screening with contrast-enhanced MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography for women with an FH who are high risk (≥20% lifetime risk) or have dense breasts. To date, most screening studies addressing outcomes in women with FH have largely included those also with confirmed or suspected gene mutations, in whom the lifetime risk is highest, with limited data for women at average to intermediate risk who are not known to be genetically susceptible and may not benefit as much from the same screening approaches. Further research focusing specifically on women with FH as the only breast cancer risk factor is warranted to refine risk assessment and optimize a multimodality personalized screening approach.

Implementing the National Dense Breast Reporting Standard, Expanding Supplemental Screening Using Current Guidelines, and the Proposed Find It Early Act

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia (DC) have dense breast notification laws that mandate varying levels of patient notification about breast density after a mammogram, and these cover over 90% of American women. On March 10, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule amending regulations under the Mammography Quality Standards Act for a national dense breast reporting standard for both patient results letters and mammogram reports. Effective September 10, 2024, letters will be required to tell a woman her breasts are "dense" or "not dense," that dense tissue makes it harder to find cancers on a mammogram, and that it increases the risk of developing cancer. Women with dense breasts will also be told that other imaging tests in addition to a mammogram may help find cancers. The specific density category can be added (eg, if mandated by a state "inform" law). Reports to providers must include the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density category. Implementing appropriate supplemental screening should be based on patient risk for missed breast cancer on mammography; such assessment should include consideration of breast density and other risk factors. This article discusses strategies for implementation. Currently 21 states and DC have varying insurance laws for supplemental breast imaging; in addition, Oklahoma requires coverage for diagnostic breast imaging. A federal insurance bill, the Find It Early Act, has been introduced that would ensure no-cost screening and diagnostic imaging for women with dense breasts or at increased risk and close loopholes in state laws.

Sixteen-Year Institutional Review of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Breast Biopsies: Trends in Histologic Diagnoses With Radiologic Correlation

Background

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important imaging tool for the management of breast cancer patients and for screening women at high risk for breast cancer.

Objectives

To examine long-term trends in the distribution of histologic diagnoses obtained from MRI-guided breast biopsies.

Design

Retrospective analysis.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the distribution of histologic diagnoses of MRI-guided breast biopsies from 2004 to 2019. All cases underwent central pathology review and lesions were classified based on the most prominent histologic finding present. Magnetic resonance imaging features were extracted from radiology reports when available and correlated with pathology diagnoses.

Results

Four hundred ninety-four MRI-guided biopsies were performed on 440 patients; overall, 73% of biopsies were benign and 27% were malignant. The annual percentages of benign and malignant diagnoses remained similar throughout the 16-year period. Of the benign entities commonly identified, the percentage of benign papillary and sclerosing lesions detected in the benign biopsies increased significantly (13% in 2004-2011 vs 31% in 2012-2019, P = .03). The mean size of malignant lesions was larger than benign lesions (30.1 mm compared with 14.2 mm, P = .045); otherwise, there were no distinguishing radiologic features between benign and malignant lesions.

Conclusion

The specificity of breast MRI remained constant over a 16-year period; however, there was a shift in the distribution of benign diagnoses with increased detection and biopsy of benign papillary and sclerosing lesions. Monitoring the distribution of breast MRI biopsy diagnoses over time with radiology-pathology correlation might improve the suboptimal specificity of breast MRI.

Prevalence and influencing factors for artifact development in breast MRI-derived maximum intensity projections

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides high diagnostic sensitivity for breast cancer. However, MRI artifacts may impede the diagnostic assessment. This is particularly important when evaluating maximum intensity projections (MIPs), such as in abbreviated MRI (AB-MRI) protocols, because high image quality is desired as a result of fewer sequences being available to compensate for problems.

PURPOSE

To describe the prevalence of artifacts on dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI-derived MIPs and to investigate potentially associated attributes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this institutional review board approved retrospective analysis, MIPs were generated from subtraction series and cropped to represent the left and right breasts as regions of interest. These images were labeled by three independent raters regarding the presence of MRI artifacts. MRI artifact prevalence and associations with patient characteristics and technical attributes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and generalized linear models (GLMMs).

RESULTS

The study included 2524 examinations from 1794 patients (median age 50 years), performed on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI systems. Overall inter-rater agreement was kappa = 0.54. Prevalence of significant unilateral artifacts was 29.2% (736/2524), whereas bilateral artifacts were present in 37.8% (953/2524) of all examinations. According to the GLMM, artifacts were significantly positive associated with age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and magnetic field strength (OR = 1.55), whereas a negative effect could be shown for body mass index (OR = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

MRI artifacts on DCE subtraction MIPs of the breast, as used in AB-MRI, are a relevant topic. Our results show that, besides the magnetic field strength, further associated attributes are patient age and body mass index, which can provide possible targets for artifact reduction.

Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis of Patient Preferences for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI as Supplemental Screening Options for Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To guide implementation of supplemental breast screening by assessing patient preferences for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology.

METHODS

In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol, from March 23 to June 3, 2022, we contacted 579 women who had both CEM screening and MRI. Women were e-mailed an invitation to complete an online survey developed using an AHP-based model to elicit preferences for CEM or MRI. Methods for categorical data analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting preferences, under the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 222 (38.3%) women; the 189 women with a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age 61.8 years, and the 34 women without a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age of 53.6 years. Of 222 respondents, 157 (70.7%, confidence interval [CI]: 64.7-76.7) were determined to prefer CEM to MRI. Breast positioning was the most important criterion for 74 of 222 (33.3%) respondents, with claustrophobia, intravenous line placement, and overall stress most important for 38, 37, and 39 women (17.1%, 16.7%, and 17.6%), respectively, and noise level, contrast injection, and indifference being emphasized least frequently (by 10 [4.5%], 11 [5.0%], and 13 [5.9%] women, respectively). CEM preference was most prevalent (MRI least prevalent) for respondents emphasizing claustrophobia (37 of 38 [97%], CI: 86.2-99.9); CEM preference was least prevalent (MRI most prevalent) for respondents emphasizing breast positioning (40 of 74 [54%], CI: 42.1-65.7).

CONCLUSIONS

AHP-based modeling reveals strong patient preferences for CEM over MRI, with claustrophobia favoring preference for CEM and breast positioning relatively favoring preference for MRI. Our results should help guide implementation of screening CEM and MRI.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the Children's Oncology Group Guideline recommendation for breast cancer (BC) screening using mammography (MAM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in female chest-irradiated childhood Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), increasingly replacing MAM in practice, was also examined.

METHODS

Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), BC mortality, health care costs, and false-positive screen frequencies of undergoing annual MAM, DBT, MRI, MAM + MRI, and DBT + MRI from age 25 to 74 years were estimated by microsimulation. BC risks and non-BC mortality were estimated from female 5-year survivors of HL in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and the US population. Test performance of MAM and MRI was synthesized from HL studies, and that of DBT from the general population. Costs (2017 US dollars [USD]) and utility weights were obtained from the medical literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

With 100% screening adherence, annual BC screening extended LYs by 0.34-0.46 years over no screening. If the willingness-to-pay threshold to gain a quality-adjusted LY was ICER < $100,000 USD, annual MAM at age 25-74 years was the only cost-effective strategy. When nonadherence was taken into consideration, only annual MAM at age 30-74 years (ICER = $56,972 USD) was cost-effective. Supplementing annual MAM with MRI costing $545 USD was not cost-effective under either adherence condition. If MRI costs were reduced to $300 USD, adding MRI to annual MAM at age 30-74 years could become more cost-effective, particularly in the reduced adherence condition (ICER = $133,682 USD).

CONCLUSION

Annual BC screening using MAM at age 30-74 years is effective and cost-effective in female chest-irradiated HL survivors. Although annual adjunct MRI is not cost-effective at $545 USD cost, it could become cost-effective as MRI cost is reduced, a plausible scenario with the emergent use of abbreviated MRI.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Abbreviated Breast MRI Utilization: A Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

To survey Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) membership on their use of abbreviated breast MRI to understand variability in practice patterns.

METHODS

A survey was developed by the SBI Patient Care and Delivery committee for distribution to SBI membership in July and August 2021. Eighteen questions queried practice demographics and then abbreviated breast MRI practices regarding initial adoption, scheduling and finances, MRI protocols, and interpretations. Comparisons between responses were made by practice demographics.

RESULTS

There were 321 respondents (response rate: 15.3%), of whom 25% (81/321) currently offer and 26% (84/321) plan to offer abbreviated breast MRI. Practices in the South (37/107, 35%) and Midwest (22/70, 31%) were more likely to offer abbreviated MRI (P = 0.005). Practices adopted many strategies to raise awareness, most directed at referring providers. The mean charge to patients was $414, and only 6% of practices offer financial support. The median time slot for studies is 20 minutes, with only 15% of practices using block scheduling of consecutive breast MRIs. Regarding MRI protocols, 64% (37/58) of respondents included only a single first-pass post-contrast sequence, and 90% (52/58) included T2-weighted sequences. Patient eligibility was highly varied, and a majority of respondents (37/58, 64%) do not provide any recommendations for screening intervals in non-high-risk women.

CONCLUSION

Abbreviated breast MRI utilization is growing rapidly, and practices are applying a variety of strategies to facilitate adoption. Although there is notable variability in patient eligibility, follow-up intervals, and costs, there is some agreement regarding abbreviated breast MRI protocols.

MRI background parenchymal enhancement, breast density and breast cancer risk factors: A cross-sectional study in pre- and post-menopausal women

Breast tissue enhances on contrast MRI and is called background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Having high BPE has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. We examined the relationship between BPE and the amount of fibroglandular tissue on MRI (MRI-FGT) and breast cancer risk factors. This was a cross-sectional study of 415 women without breast cancer undergoing contrast-enhanced breast MRI at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All women completed a questionnaire assessing exposures at the time of MRI. Prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) describing the relationship between breast cancer risk factors and BPE and MRI-FGT were generated using modified Poisson regression. In multivariable-adjusted models a positive association between body mass index (BMI) and BPE was observed, with a 5-unit increase in BMI associated with a 14% and 44% increase in prevalence of high BPE in pre- and post-menopausal women, respectively. Conversely, a strong inverse relationship between BMI and MRI-FGT was observed in both pre- (PR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57, 0.76) and post-menopausal (PR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.56, 0.78) women. Use of preventive medication (e.g., tamoxifen) was associated with having low BPE, while no association was observed for MRI-FGT. BPE is an imaging marker available from standard contrast-enhanced MRI, that is influenced by endogenous and exogenous hormonal exposures in both pre- and post-menopausal women.

Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers: a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset

Background

Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI.

The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).

Methods

Mammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.

Results

37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84–87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85–86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86–91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89–91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81–85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81–83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68–0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45–0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90–89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88–89%) and Group 2 (83–84%).

Conclusions

Single-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13058-022-01549-5.

BI-RADS 3 Assessment on MRI: A Lesion-Based Review for Breast Radiologists

Unlike mammography and US, limited data exist to establish well-defined criteria for MRI findings that have a ≤2% likelihood of malignancy. Therefore, determining which findings are appropriate for a BI-RADS 3 assessment on MRI remains challenging and variable among breast radiologists. Emerging data suggest that BI-RADS 3 should be limited to baseline MRI examinations (or examinations with less than two years of prior comparisons) performed for high-risk screening and only used for masses with all of the typical morphological and kinetic features suggestive of a fibroadenoma or dominant enhancing T2 hypointense foci that is distinct from background parenchymal enhancement and without suspicious kinetics. This article presents an updated discussion of BI-RADS 3 assessment (probably benign) for breast MRI using current evidence.

Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive exam for detecting breast cancer. The American College of Radiology recommends women with 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing breast cancer be screened annually with MRI. However, other high-risk populations would also benefit. Hartmann et al. reported women with atypical hyperplasia have nearly a 30% incidence of breast cancer at 25-year follow-up. Women with dense breast tissue have up to a 4-fold increased risk of breast cancer when compared to average-risk women; their cancers are more likely to be mammographically occult. Because multiple cohorts of women are at high risk for developing breast cancer, there has been a movement to develop an abbreviated MRI (abMRI) protocol to expand the availability of MRI screening. Studies on abMRI effectiveness have been promising, with Weinstein et al. demonstrating a cancer detection rate of 27.4/1000 in women with dense breasts after a negative digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast MRI is also used to evaluate the extent of disease as part of preoperative assessment in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to assess a patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper aims to explore the current uses of MRI and propose future indications and directions.