Primary Prevention and Early Detection of Hereditary Breast Cancer

Background

Primary prevention and early detection of hereditary breast cancer has been one of the main topics of breast cancer research in recent decades. The knowledge of risk factors for breast cancer has been increasing continuously just like the recommendations for risk management. Pathogenic germline variants (mutations, class 4/5) of risk genes are significant susceptibility factors in healthy individuals. At the same time, germline mutations serve as biomarkers for targeted therapy in breast cancer treatment. Therefore, management of healthy mutation carriers to enable primary prevention is in the focus as much as the consideration of pathogenic germline variants for therapeutic decisions. Since 1996, the German Consortium has provided quality-assured care for counselees and patients with familial burden of breast and ovarian cancer.

Summary

Currently, there are 23 university centers with over 100 cooperating DKG-certified breast and gynecological cancer centers. These centers provide standardized, evidence-based, and knowledge-generating care, which includes aspects of primary as well as secondary and tertiary prevention. An important aspect of quality assurance and development was the inclusion of the HBOC centers in the certification system of the German Cancer Society (GCS). Since 2020, the centers have been regularly audited and their quality standards continuously reviewed according to quality indicators adapted to the current state of research. The standard of care at GC-HBOC' centers involves the evaluation as well as evolution of various aspects of care like inclusion criteria, identification of new risk genes, management of variants of unknown significance (class 3), evaluation of risk-reducing options, intensified surveillance, and communication of risks. Among these, the possibility of intensified surveillance in the GC-HBOC for early detection of breast cancer is an important component of individual risk management for many counselees. As has been shown in recent years, in carriers of pathogenic variants in high-risk genes, this approach enables the detection of breast cancer at very early, more favorable stages although no reduction of mortality has been demonstrated yet. The key component of the intensified surveillance is annual contrast-enhanced breast MRI, supplemented by up to biannual breast ultrasound and mammography usually starting at age 40.

Key Messages

Apart from early detection, the central goal of care is the prevention of cancer. By utilizing individualized risk calculation, the optimal timeframe for risk-reducing surgery can be estimated, and counselees can be supported in reaching preference-sensitive decisions.

Development and validation of a four-dimensional registration technique for DCE breast MRI

BACKGROUND

Patient motion can degrade image quality of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) due to subtraction artifacts. By objectively and subjectively assessing the impact of principal component analysis (PCA)-based registration on pretreatment DCE-MRIs of breast cancer patients, we aim to validate four-dimensional registration for DCE breast MRI.

RESULTS

After applying a four-dimensional, PCA-based registration algorithm to 154 pretreatment DCE-MRIs of histopathologically well-described breast cancer patients, we quantitatively determined image quality in unregistered and registered images. For subjective assessment, we ranked motion severity in a clinical reading setting according to four motion categories (0: no motion, 1: mild motion, 2: moderate motion, 3: severe motion with nondiagnostic image quality). The median of images with either moderate or severe motion (median category 2, IQR 0) was reassigned to motion category 1 (IQR 0) after registration. Motion category and motion reduction by registration were correlated (Spearman's rho: 0.83, p < 0.001). For objective assessment, we performed perfusion model fitting using the extended Tofts model and calculated its volume transfer coefficient K^trans as surrogate parameter for motion artifacts. Mean K^trans decreased from 0.103 (± 0.077) before registration to 0.097 (± 0.070) after registration (p < 0.001). Uncertainty in perfusion quantification was reduced by 7.4% after registration (± 15.5, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Four-dimensional, PCA-based image registration improves image quality of breast DCE-MRI by correcting for motion artifacts in subtraction images and reduces uncertainty in quantitative perfusion modeling. The improvement is most pronounced when moderate-to-severe motion artifacts are present.

[High-risk screening using magnetic resonance imaging]

BACKGROUND

Specialized breast cancer early detection programs with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk patients are by now well established in several countries. In Germany, such a program has been running as part of routine care since 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This review article will summarize current developments in high-risk screening with MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experiences with the high-risk screening program in Germany over now more than 10 years as well as a review of the current literature will form the basis for this article.

RESULTS

The MRI of the breast is by far the most sensitive imaging modality for the detection of breast cancer and represents the back bone of high-risk screening. More than 90% of cancers detected at high-risk screening are visible on the MRI and more than 30% of cancers are detected primarily by MRI alone. However, a prerequisite for effective screening with MRI is a sufficiently high breast cancer incidence in the screened population. This is demonstrated by the fact that the positive predictive value of screening with MRI in women without a BRCA1/2 mutation in the age group between 30 and 39 years is unacceptably low with 2.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk screening, MRI is the primary imaging tool with mammography and/or ultrasound added as adjunct if necessary. In women with a strong family history of breast cancer but no proven pathogenic mutation in one of the known risk genes in the index patient in the family, the high-risk screening should not routinely start at age 30, but should be postponed until the 10-year breast cancer risk passes a threshold of 5%.

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as "high-risk" or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and noncarriers under prospective intensified surveillance

Comparably little is known about breast cancer (BC) risks in women from families tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations despite an indicative family history, as opposed to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We determined the age-dependent risks of first and contralateral breast cancer (FBC, CBC) both in noncarriers and carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, who participated in an intensified breast imaging surveillance program. The study was conducted between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2017, at 12 university centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Two cohorts were prospectively followed up for incident FBC (n = 4,380; 16,398 person-years [PY], median baseline age: 39 years) and CBC (n = 2,993; 10,090 PY, median baseline age: 42 years). Cumulative FBC risk at age 60 was 61.8% (95% CI 52.8-70.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 43.2% (95% CI 32.1-56.3%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 15.7% (95% CI 11.9-20.4%) for noncarriers. FBC risks were significantly higher than in the general population, with incidence rate ratios of 23.9 (95% CI 18.9-29.8) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 13.5 (95% CI 9.2-19.1) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 4.9 (95% CI 3.8-6.3) for BRCA1/2 noncarriers. Cumulative CBC risk 10 years after FBC was 25.1% (95% CI 19.6-31.9%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers, 6.6% (95% CI 3.4-12.5%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers and 3.6% (95% CI 2.2-5.7%) for noncarriers. CBC risk in noncarriers was similar to women with unilateral BC from the general population. Further studies are needed to confirm whether less intensified surveillance is justified in women from BRCA1/2 negative families with elevated risk.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered.

TEACHING POINTS

• US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.

RESULTS

Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.

KEY POINTS

• CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information

This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI.

KEY POINTS

• Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.

Intraindividual comparison of two methods of volumetric breast composition assessment

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the results of two software-based methods, Quantra and Volpara, for volumetric breast composition assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred forty-five normal, bilateral, two-view, digital mammograms were included. Breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FTV), and percent density (PD) were measured using both methods and compared. Deming regression was performed to obtain linear equations for mapping the results of one software on the other.

RESULTS

The median and quartile ranges of both methods agreed well for BV but were different for FTV and PD, with Quantra showing much higher values of FTV and PD. The correlation of results obtained by both methods for BV, FTV, and PD was 0.99, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively. Intraclass correlation in the assignment of quartiles of BV, FTV, and PD was 0.96, 0.86, and 0.90, respectively. Both methods showed a similar association of FTV and PD with patient age and similar left-to-right correlation. Mapping of results onto each other using linear equations removed the systematic differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Quantra and Volpara use different models for analysis of volumetric breast composition and produce different nominal results of FTV and PD, both methods are highly correlated and show very good to excellent agreement in quartile assignment of all parameters measured. Both methods show a similar association with patient age and similar reproducibility. Both methods can be mapped onto each other using the equations suggested.

Breast cancer in young women after treatment for Hodgkin's disease during childhood or adolescence--an observational study with up to 33-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The treatment of Hodgkin's disease (HD; also called Hodgkin's lymphoma) in children and adolescents with radiotherapy and chemotherapy leads to high survival rates but has a number of late effects. The most serious one is the development of a secondary malignant tumor, usually in the field that was irradiated. In women, breast cancer can arise in this way.

METHOD

Data on the occurrence of secondary breast cancer (sBC) were collected from 590 women who were treated in five consecutive pediatric HD treatment studies in the years 1978-1995 and then re-evaluated in a late follow-up study after a median interval of 17.8 years (maximum, 33.7 years). Information was obtained from 1999 onward by written inquiry to the participants and their treating physicians. The cumulative incidence of sBC was calculated by the Gooley method.

RESULTS

By July 2012, sBC had been diagnosed in 26 of 590 female HD patients; the breast cancer was in the irradiated field in 25 of these 26 patients. Their age at the time of treatment for HD was 9.9 to 16.2 years (the pubertal phase), and sBC was discovered with a median latency of 20.7 years after HD treatment (shortest latency, 14.3 years) and at a median age of 35.3 years (youngest age, 26.8 years). The radiation dose to the supradiaphragmatic fields ranged from 20 to 45 Gy. The cumulative incidence for sBC 30 years after treatment for HD was 19% (95% confidence interval, 12% to 29%). For women aged 25 to 45 in this series, the frequency of breast cancer was 24 times as high as in the corresponding normal population.

CONCLUSION

Women who were treated for HD in childhood or adolescence have an increased risk of developing breast cancer as young adults. The risk is associated with prior radiotherapy and with the age at which it was administered (the pubertal phase). Because of these findings, a structured breast cancer screening project for this high-risk group has been initiated in collaboration with the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (Deutsches Konsortium für familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebs).

Intensified surveillance for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk patients

Efforts for early detection of breast cancer play an important role in the care of high-risk women. This will include both women with a pathological mutation in one of the known breast cancer susceptibility genes as well as women with a high breast cancer risk based on family history only. Due to the much higher incidence of breast cancer in premenopausal women with a genetic predisposition or a familial background, to be most effective, imaging-based breast surveillance should start at an age as early as 25-30 years. There is now ample evidence that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is by far the most sensitive imaging modality in young high-risk women. With high-risk multimodality screening at least 30% of breast cancers will be detected primarily by MRI and would have been missed at regular screening without MRI. Therefore, most high-risk breast surveillance programs now offer annual MRI to eligible high-risk women from age 25 to 30, usually supplemented by regular mammography starting at least from age 40. The inclusion of clinical breast exam (CBE) and/or ultrasound in the high-risk surveillance has little impact on the detection of additional cancers, but may improve compliance and reduce unnecessary callbacks for nonspecific findings on MRI. To reduce advanced stage interval cancers, especially in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, some programs offer additional semiannual CBE and/or ultrasound or alternate MRI and mammography every 6 months. How long regular MRI should be continued in high-risk women is a matter of considerable debate. It appears feasible that MRI can safely be discontinued even in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers between the age of 60 and 70, especially if mammographic breast density is low. Even though several cohort studies have now demonstrated a very favorable stage distribution of breast cancers found in women undergoing high-risk surveillance with MRI, data on long-term survival and mortality in these patients is still rare.

Use of an Additional Diagnostic Work-up Following a Treatment Recommendation from the Preoperative Conference of the Mammography Screening Units

Objective: If a focus of suspicion is classified as being B 3-5 by a punch biopsy as part of a mammography screening, a recommendation for further action to be taken will be given in the preoperative conference of the screening unit. As part of this investigation, these treatment recommendations were compared with the final therapeutic approach taken at a certified breast centre. Furthermore, it was investigated whether and which additional examinations were performed on patients, depending on compliance with the recommended treatment. Material and Method: The data from 272 breast cancer patients from the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 was analysed. The patients took part in the screening programmes of four screening units in the German mammography screening programme, in one federal state. In addition, the data from each patient from one screening unit was analysed in two further federal states. Results: In total, the most recently conducted intervention deviated from the treatment recommendation from the preoperative conference in the screening unit in 77 out of 272 patients (28.3 %). Of these, there were 50 recommendations for open biopsy which ultimately resulted in breast-conserving surgery, which is not to be evaluated as an error, as the bioptic result was supplemented by the open biopsy. Additional examinations were performed in patients with deviating treatment recommendation in 39 cases (50.6 %) and in patients without deviating treatment recommendation in 66 cases (34.0 %). The additional examinations carried out included additional punch biopsies (most frequent) and MRI scans, but also additional ultrasounds or a mammography. Conclusions: Additional examinations lead to a change in treatment in a higher percentage of patients in comparison with the initial screening including assessment. An exact reexamination of the findings obtained in the screening is therefore preoperatively necessary in order to guarantee optimum treatment.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided?

The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with mammography (MG) and combined CESM + MG in terms of detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers in order to assess the potential to reduce radiation exposure. A total of 118 patients underwent MG and CESM and had final histological results. CESM was performed as a bilateral examination starting 2 min after injection of iodinated contrast medium. Three independent blinded radiologists read the CESM, MG, and CESM + MG images with an interval of at least 4 weeks to avoid case memorization. Sensitivity and size measurement correlation and differences were calculated, average glandular dose (AGD) levels were compared, and breast densities were reported. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests were performed. A total of 107 imaging pairs were available for analysis. Densities were ACR1: 2, ACR2: 45, ACR3: 42, and ACR4: 18. Mean AGD was 1.89 mGy for CESM alone, 1.78 mGy for MG, and 3.67 mGy for the combination. In very dense breasts, AGD of CESM was significantly lower than MG. Sensitivity across readers was 77.9 % for MG alone, 94.7 % for CESM, and 95 % for CESM + MG. Average tumor size measurement error compared to postsurgical pathology was -0.6 mm for MG, +0.6 mm for CESM, and +4.5 mm for CESM + MG (p < 0.001 for CESM + MG vs. both modalities). CESM alone has the same sensitivity and better size assessment as CESM + MG and was significantly better than MG with only 6.2 % increase in AGD. The combination of CESM + MG led to systematic size overestimation. When a CESM examination is planned, additional MG can be avoided, with the possibility of saving up to 61 % of radiation dose, especially in patients with dense breasts.

Volumetric breast composition analysis: reproducibility of breast percent density and fibroglandular tissue volume measurements in serial mammograms

BACKGROUND

Volumetric breast composition analysis represents a useful tool for assessing changes in breast composition over time. However, no data exist on the reproducibility of this method in serial mammograms.

PURPOSE

To assess the reproducibility of two volumetric breast composition parameters, breast percent density (PD) and fibroglandular tissue volume (FTV), in consecutive mammograms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Volumetric breast composition analysis to determine PD and FTV was performed in two consecutive unilateral mammograms of 211 patients. All mammograms were obtained on the same digital mammography unit within a maximum interval of 24 months. Volumetric data for analysis for both examinations were available for 174 patients. Thirty-two patients had successful volumetric analysis of additional consecutive examinations on a second digital mammography unit. Inter-examination correlation of measurements and absolute differences were analyzed. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to compare readings from different mammography units.

RESULTS

Mean FTV remained constant over the study period. A reduction in PD of 0.5% and a mean increase in breast volume (BV) of 3% were observed. FTV measurements obtained on the same mammography unit were significantly more reproducible than PD measurements (Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.947 and 0.920, respectively; P < 0.05). A 15% difference between mean absolute volume measurements (FTV and BV) obtained on different mammography units was observed (P ≤ 0.001), while mean PD was close to the expected value.

CONCLUSION

Volumetric breast composition analysis is highly reproducible in serial mammograms in normal women. FTV is a more reproducible parameter than PD, indicating that absolute quantification of breast parenchyma may be preferable to the measurement of relative parameters such as PD. However, a disadvantage of using FTV is that it is susceptible to systematic differences when measurements are obtained on different imaging platforms.

Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography

PURPOSE

To evaluate the additional benefit of true geometric (air-gap) magnification views for the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After ethical approval, we retrospectively reviewed patient records to identify 100 patients with suspicious microcalcifications (35 malignant, 65 benign) who had a standard digital mammography and an additional digital magnification view in the same projection within three months. All images were obtained using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital system (Senographe 2000 D, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St. Giles, UK). Images were independently analyzed by six board-certified radiologists. The probability of malignancy was estimated using first standard contact mammography alone (MG) and then mammography in combination with the magnification view (MG+MAG) using a modified Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification system and a percentage scale. Results were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, readers assessed the subjective visibility of the calcifications.

RESULTS

For all six readers combined, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.664 ± 0.052 for MG and 0.813 ± 0.042 for MG + MAG, resulting in a statistically significant improvement of 0.148 ± 0.120. Each reader had a higher AUC for MG + MAG than MG, with the improvement being statistically significant in four of the six readers. In 76.34 % of the cases, MG + MAG resulted in better visibility of calcifications compared with mammography alone. In 33 % slightly more and in 39 % significantly more calcifications were found.

CONCLUSION

Even in digital mammography with the option of using electronic magnification (zoom) at the viewing workstation, true geometric (air-gap) magnification views remain important for the visibility and correct classification of microcalcifications and for the assessment of their extent.

MRI of the breast as part of the assessment in population-based mammography screening

PURPOSE

To evaluate the indications and impact of MRI of the breast as an assessment modality in population-based mammography screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

135 consecutive contrast-enhanced MRI exams of the breast, which were performed between April 2007 and October 2012 as part of the assessment at one mammography screening unit before issuance of a final management recommendation (e. g. definitely benign or malignant), were retrospectively reviewed. Overall, the cases with an MRI exam of the breast during assessment represent less than 2 % of all assessment cases at this screening unit. All MRI exams were performed as part of the routine clinical care on a 1.5 T or 3 T whole-body magnet using a standard dynamic breast MRI protocol.

RESULTS

In the 135 study patients, a total of 30 malignancies in 28 patients were found, including two bilateral cancers. One patient was diagnosed with a non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and of the remaining 29 malignant lesions, 3 (10 %) were in-situ cancers (DCIS) and 26 (90 %) were invasive breast cancers including 3 multifocal or multicentric cancers. All 26 detected invasive cancers were lymph-node negative and 25/29 (86 %) of the detected breast cancer were early stage cancers (stage 0 or 1). 53 of the 135 MRI exams (39.3 %) were suspicious for malignancy (BIRADS 4 or 5) with no cancer missed by MRI. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the MRI on a per patient basis were 100 %, 77 %, 0.53, and 1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRI is a useful problem-solving tool in mammography screening assessment with a high sensitivity and an acceptable positive predictive value.

The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

While it has been reported that the risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families is elevated, little is known about contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter cohort study was performed from 1996 to 2011 and comprised 6,235 women with unilateral breast cancer from 6,230 high risk families that had tested positive for BRCA1 (n = 1,154) or BRCA2 (n = 575) mutations or tested negative (n = 4,501). Cumulative contralateral breast cancer risks were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and were compared between groups using the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was applied to assess the impact of the age at first breast cancer and the familial history stratified by mutation status.

Results

The cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer 25 years after first breast cancer was 44.1% (95%CI, 37.6% to 50.6%) for patients from BRCA1 positive families, 33.5% (95%CI, 22.4% to 44.7%) for patients from BRCA2 positive families and 17.2% (95%CI, 14.5% to 19.9%) for patients from families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. Younger age at first breast cancer was associated with a higher risk of contralateral breast cancer. For women who had their first breast cancer before the age of 40 years, the cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer after 25 years was 55.1% for BRCA1, 38.4% for BRCA2, and 28.4% for patients from BRCA1/2 negative families. If the first breast cancer was diagnosed at the age of 50 or later, 25-year cumulative risks were 21.6% for BRCA1, 15.5% for BRCA2, and 12.9% for BRCA1/2 negative families.

Conclusions

Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations is similar to the risk in patients with sporadic breast cancer. Thus, the mutation status should guide decision making for contralateral mastectomy.

[Consensus Meeting of Course Directors in Breast Imaging, 7 May 2011, in Frankfurt am Main--topic: MRI of the breast]

PURPOSE

The general gap in the BIRADS lexicon between lesion description and categorization leads to very different recommendations in clinical breast radiology. This is particularly true for breast MRI. The third consensus meeting of course directors in breast imaging aimed at an increase in standardization of breast MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 166 and 344 participants in the audience (A) and 9 and 13 expert panel participants (P) took part in an electronic wireless voting system. The audience consisted of 98% radiologists and 2% gynecologists (A: n=295; P: n=12: radiologists 92%/gynecologists 8%). Of all participants, 62% had more than 10 years of experience in breast imaging and only 9% had less than 3 years of experience (P: 100%>10 years of experience). The day before 44, clinically relevant, though unresolved questions were formulated by the expert panel. For the evaluation a distinction was made between answers with a great majority (>75%), simple majority (50-<75%) and no majority (<50%) as well as answers from the expert panel and answers from the audience.

RESULTS

Of 44 questions, all but two were answered with simple or great majority.

CONCLUSION

Technique, reporting and clinical use are becoming more and more accurately defined in MRI of the breast and MR-guided interventions. The third consensus meeting of this kind gained numerous answers and thus enables recommendations for didactic as well as clinical routine work.

[Sonographic detection of microcalcifications - potential of new method]

PURPOSE

Does the easier microcalcification detection (EMD) method enable sonographic visualization of microcalcifications in breast core biopsy specimens compared with mammography?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective randomized study, 105 core biopsy specimens obtained with stereotactic guidance were examined by mammography and ultrasound. EMD is integrated in a high-end ultrasound system and uses three level settings (0 - 2 blue, 3 - 5 violet, and 6 - 8 black-and-white; 14 MHz). Detection of microcalcifications per core specimen was determined for ultrasound and mammography. EMD image quality was rated on a scale of 1 - 9. ANOVA and Sidak post-hoc testing, Pearson regression analysis (r), and Spearman rank correlation (rho) were performed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated, and an ROC analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The blue color map 1 was assigned the highest mean score of 1.5 ± 0.7 (p< 0.05 compared with black-and-white and violet). There was good correlation between the two modalities (r= 0.708 and rho= 0.694) with detection of 3.5 ± 3.1 microcalcifications per specimen by ultrasound versus 4.3 ± 4.8 by mammography (p> 0.05). The ICC of 0.773 indicates little disagreement between the two modalities. ROC analysis showed mammography to be superior to ultrasound compared with histological detection of microcalcifications (AUC= 0.837 vs. AUC= 0.728).

CONCLUSION

Sonographic detection of microcalcifications in stereotactic biopsy specimens using the EMD method correlates well with digital mammography. Mammography is slightly superior.

Telephone counseling and attendance in a national mammography-screening program a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In Germany, a mammography-screening program (MSP) was implemented on a national level. It complies with all criteria of the European guidelines for quality assurance in screening mammography; however, the attendance rate is 54%, falling short of the target attendance rate of 70%. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional telephone counseling improves attendance among nonresponders and the level of satisfaction with telephone counseling.

DESIGN

In a prospective RCT, women identified as nonresponders in the MSP were randomized to a control group that received written reminders or to an intervention group that additionally received telephone counseling. In a follow-up, a subset of the intervention group was contacted by telephone regarding their satisfaction with telephone counseling.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In 2008, a total of 5477 women aged 50-69 years who were eligible for the German MSP but had not participated up to 6 weeks after the first invitation were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Individual telephone counseling consisted of scripted calls from a trained counselor who provided information on MSP and answered the woman's questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Report of mammography use provided by the screening unit 3 months after the reminder was sent.

RESULTS

Analysis was conducted in 2009. Comparison of screening attendance revealed a significantly higher attendance rate in the intervention group compared with controls (29.7% vs 26.1%, p=0.0035). When only women for whom telephone numbers were available were analyzed, attendance was even better (35.5% vs 29.7%, p=0.0004). In the follow-up, 278 of 404 women were actually surveyed. Of those, 33% stated that telephone counseling had influenced their decision, 56% stated that they had undergone screening mammography, and 77% agreed that personal telephone counseling should be used routinely to encourage nonresponders to go for screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual telephone counseling for nonresponders to a national program for breast cancer screening was well accepted by participants and effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000645954.

Breast tomosynthesis

Digital mammography has been well-evaluated for the diagnosis of breast cancer. The scientific data show that mammography alone, especially in dense breast parenchyma, has its weaknesses. These weaknesses are due to the low contrast of tumors in comparison with the surrounding parenchyma and the overlying structures that mask tumors. The initial results from tomosynthesis studies show a tendency for better imaging and higher accuracy and lower recall rates with tomosynthesis. We present in this article a literature review of the development of breast tomosynthesis and follow it with case examples.