Mammographic features at primary breast cancer diagnosis in relation to recurrence-free survival.

PURPOSE: The number of women living with breast cancer (BC) is increasing, and the efficacy of surveillance programs after BC treatment is essential. Identification of links between mammographic features and recurrence could help design follow up strategies, which may lead to earlier detection of recurrence. The aim of this study was to analyze associations between mammographic features at diagnosis and their potential association with recurrence-free survival (RFS). METHODS: Women with invasive BC in the prospective Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (n = 1116, 1991-2014) were assessed for locoregional and distant recurrences, with a median follow-up of 10.15 years. Of these, 34 women were excluded due to metastatic disease at diagnosis or missing recurrence data. Mammographic features (breast density [BI-RADS and clinical routine], tumor appearance, mode of detection) and tumor characteristics (tumor size, axillary lymph node involvement, histological grade) at diagnosis were registered. Associations were analyzed using Cox regression, yielding hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of the 1082 women, 265 (24.4 %) had recurrent disease. There was an association between high mammographic breast density at diagnosis and impaired RFS (adjusted HR 1.32 (0.98-1.79). In analyses limited to screen-detected BC, this association was stronger (adjusted HR 2.12 (1.35-3.32). There was no association between mammographic tumor appearance and recurrence. CONCLUSION: RFS was impaired in women with high breast density compared to those with low density, especially among women with screen-detected BC. This study may lead to insights on mammographic features preceding BC recurrence, which could be used to tailor follow up strategies.

Baseline breast tissue characteristics determine the effect of tamoxifen on mammographic density change.

Tamoxifen prevents recurrence of breast cancer and is also approved for preventive, risk-reducing, therapy. Tamoxifen alters the breast tissue composition and decreases the mammographic density. We aimed to test if baseline breast tissue composition influences tamoxifen-associated density change. This biopsy-based study included 83 participants randomised to 6 months daily intake of placebo, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, or 1 mg tamoxifen. The study is nested within the double-blinded tamoxifen dose-determination trial Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer Intervention (KARISMA) Study. Ultrasound-guided core-needle breast biopsies were collected at baseline before starting treatment. Biopsies were quantified for epithelial, stromal, and adipose distributions, and epithelial and stromal expression of proliferation marker Ki67, oestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR). Mammographic density was measured using STRATUS. We found that greater mammographic density at baseline was positively associated with stromal area and inversely associated with adipose area and stromal expression of ER. Premenopausal women had greater mammographic density and epithelial tissue, and expressed more epithelial Ki67, PR, and stromal PR, compared to postmenopausal women. In women treated with tamoxifen (1-20 mg), greater density decrease was associated with higher baseline density, epithelial Ki67, and stromal PR. Women who responded to tamoxifen with a density decrease had on average 17% higher baseline density and a 2.2-fold higher PR expression compared to non-responders. Our results indicate that features in the normal breast tissue before tamoxifen exposure influences the tamoxifen-associated density decrease, and that the age-associated difference in density change may be related to age-dependant differences in expression of Ki67 and PR.

Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016-2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error. METHODS: Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1-5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review. RESULTS: In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The randomized controlled trial on digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT) and digital mammography (DM), 2016-2017, showed no difference in cancer detection for the two techniques. The rates of false negative screening examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were consistent with the rates in prior DM reviews, indicating that the non-superior DBT performance in the trial might not be due to interpretive error alone. KEY POINTS: • Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) did not result in a higher breast cancer detection rate compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) in the To-Be 1 trial. • The false negative rates for examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were determined in the trial to test if the lack of differences was due to interpretive error. • The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT versus DM was complex and not due to interpretive error alone.

Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are proposed as a replacement of the first reader in double reading within mammography screening. We aimed to assess cancer detection accuracy of an AI system in a Danish screening population. METHODS: We retrieved a consecutive screening cohort from the Region of Southern Denmark including all participating women between Aug 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018. Screening mammograms were processed by a commercial AI system and detection accuracy was evaluated in two scenarios, Standalone AI and AI-integrated screening replacing first reader, with first reader and double reading with arbitration (combined reading) as comparators, respectively. Two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean first reader sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec). Reference standard was histopathology-proven breast cancer or cancer-free follow-up within 24 months. Coprimary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), recall rate, and arbitration rate. Accuracy estimates were calculated using McNemar's test or exact binomial test. RESULTS: Out of 272,008 screening mammograms from 158,732 women, 257,671 (94.7%) with adequate image data were included in the final analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were 63.7% (95% CI 61.6%-65.8%) and 97.8% (97.7-97.8%) for first reader, and 73.9% (72.0-75.8%) and 97.9% (97.9-98.0%) for combined reading, respectively. Standalone AIsens showed a lower specificity (-1.3%) and PPV (-6.1%), and a higher recall rate (+ 1.3%) compared to first reader (p < 0.0001 for all), while Standalone AIspec had a lower sensitivity (-5.1%; p < 0.0001), PPV (-1.3%; p = 0.01) and NPV (-0.04%; p = 0.0002). Compared to combined reading, Integrated AIsens achieved higher sensitivity (+ 2.3%; p = 0.0004), but lower specificity (-0.6%) and PPV (-3.9%) as well as higher recall rate (+ 0.6%) and arbitration rate (+ 2.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Integrated AIspec showed no significant difference in any outcome measures apart from a slightly higher arbitration rate (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed higher detection of interval cancers by Standalone AI and Integrated AI at both thresholds (p < 0.0001 for all) with a varying composition of detected cancers across multiple subgroups of tumour characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing first reader in double reading with an AI could be feasible but choosing an appropriate AI threshold is crucial to maintaining cancer detection accuracy and workload.

Diversity and taxonomic revision of methanogens and other archaea in the intestinal tract of terrestrial arthropods.

Methane emission by terrestrial invertebrates is restricted to millipedes, termites, cockroaches, and scarab beetles. The arthropod-associated archaea known to date belong to the orders Methanobacteriales, Methanomassiliicoccales, Methanomicrobiales, and Methanosarcinales, and in a few cases also to non-methanogenic Nitrososphaerales and Bathyarchaeales. However, all major host groups are severely undersampled, and the taxonomy of existing lineages is not well developed. Full-length 16S rRNA gene sequences and genomes of arthropod-associated archaea are scarce, reference databases lack resolution, and the names of many taxa are either not validly published or under-classified and require revision. Here, we investigated the diversity of archaea in a wide range of methane-emitting arthropods, combining phylogenomic analysis of isolates and metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with amplicon sequencing of full-length 16S rRNA genes. Our results allowed us to describe numerous new species in hitherto undescribed taxa among the orders Methanobacteriales (Methanacia, Methanarmilla, Methanobaculum, Methanobinarius, Methanocatella, Methanoflexus, Methanorudis, and Methanovirga, all gen. nova), Methanomicrobiales (Methanofilum and Methanorbis, both gen. nova), Methanosarcinales (Methanofrustulum and Methanolapillus, both gen. nova), Methanomassiliicoccales (Methanomethylophilaceae fam. nov., Methanarcanum, Methanogranum, Methanomethylophilus, Methanomicula, Methanoplasma, Methanoprimaticola, all gen. nova), and the new family Bathycorpusculaceae (Bathycorpusculum gen. nov.). Reclassification of amplicon libraries from this and previous studies using this new taxonomic framework revealed that arthropods harbor only CO2 and methyl-reducing hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Numerous genus-level lineages appear to be present exclusively in arthropods, suggesting long evolutionary trajectories with their termite, cockroach, and millipede hosts, and a radiation into various microhabitats and ecological niches provided by their digestive tracts (e.g., hindgut compartments, gut wall, or anaerobic protists). The distribution patterns among the different host groups are often complex, indicating a mixed mode of transmission and a parallel evolution of invertebrate and vertebrate-associated lineages.

AI Risk Score on Screening Mammograms Preceding Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Background Few studies have evaluated the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in prior screening mammography. Purpose To examine AI risk scores assigned to screening mammography in women who were later diagnosed with breast cancer. Materials and Methods Image data and screening information of examinations performed from January 2004 to December 2019 as part of BreastScreen Norway were used in this retrospective study. Prior screening examinations from women who were later diagnosed with cancer were assigned an AI risk score by a commercially available AI system (scores of 1-7, low risk of malignancy; 8-9, intermediate risk; and 10, high risk of malignancy). Mammographic features of the cancers based on the AI score were also assessed. The association between AI score and mammographic features was tested with a bivariate test. Results A total of 2787 prior screening examinations from 1602 women (mean age, 59 years ± 5.1 [SD]) with screen-detected (n = 1016) or interval (n = 586) cancers showed an AI risk score of 10 for 389 (38.3%) and 231 (39.4%) cancers, respectively, on the mammograms in the screening round prior to diagnosis. Among the screen-detected cancers with AI scores available two screening rounds (4 years) before diagnosis, 23.0% (122 of 531) had a score of 10. Mammographic features were associated with AI score for invasive screen-detected cancers (P < .001). Density with calcifications was registered for 13.6% (43 of 317) of screen-detected cases with a score of 10 and 4.6% (15 of 322) for those with a score of 1-7. Conclusion More than one in three cases of screen-detected and interval cancers had the highest AI risk score at prior screening, suggesting that the use of AI in mammography screening may lead to earlier detection of breast cancers. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mehta in this issue.

Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown promising results using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve mammography screening accuracy and reduce screen-reading workload; however, to our knowledge, a randomised trial has not yet been conducted. We aimed to assess the clinical safety of an AI-supported screen-reading protocol compared with standard screen reading by radiologists following mammography. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, population-based trial, women aged 40-80 years eligible for mammography screening (including general screening with 1·5-2-year intervals and annual screening for those with moderate hereditary risk of breast cancer or a history of breast cancer) at four screening sites in Sweden were informed about the study as part of the screening invitation. Those who did not opt out were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening (intervention group) or standard double reading without AI (control group). Screening examinations were automatically randomised by the Picture Archive and Communications System with a pseudo-random number generator after image acquisition. The participants and the radiographers acquiring the screening examinations, but not the radiologists reading the screening examinations, were masked to study group allocation. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0) provided an examination-based malignancy risk score on a 10-level scale that was used to triage screening examinations to single reading (score 1-9) or double reading (score 10), with AI risk scores (for all examinations) and computer-aided detection marks (for examinations with risk score 8-10) available to the radiologists doing the screen reading. Here we report the prespecified clinical safety analysis, to be done after 80 000 women were enrolled, to assess the secondary outcome measures of early screening performance (cancer detection rate, recall rate, false positive rate, positive predictive value [PPV] of recall, and type of cancer detected [invasive or in situ]) and screen-reading workload. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all women randomly assigned to a group with one complete screening examination, excluding women recalled due to enlarged lymph nodes diagnosed with lymphoma). The lowest acceptable limit for safety in the intervention group was a cancer detection rate of more than 3 per 1000 participants screened. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838756, and is closed to accrual; follow-up is ongoing to assess the primary endpoint of the trial, interval cancer rate. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2021, and July 28, 2022, 80 033 women were randomly assigned to AI-supported screening (n=40 003) or double reading without AI (n=40 030). 13 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 54·0 years (IQR 46·7-63·9). Race and ethnicity data were not collected. AI-supported screening among 39 996 participants resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46 345 screen readings. Standard screening among 40 024 participants resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83 231 screen readings. Cancer detection rates were 6·1 (95% CI 5·4-6·9) per 1000 screened participants in the intervention group, above the lowest acceptable limit for safety, and 5·1 (4·4-5·8) per 1000 in the control group-a ratio of 1·2 (95% CI 1·0-1·5; p=0·052). Recall rates were 2·2% (95% CI 2·0-2·3) in the intervention group and 2·0% (1·9-2·2) in the control group. The false positive rate was 1·5% (95% CI 1·4-1·7) in both groups. The PPV of recall was 28·3% (95% CI 25·3-31·5) in the intervention group and 24·8% (21·9-28·0) in the control group. In the intervention group, 184 (75%) of 244 cancers detected were invasive and 60 (25%) were in situ; in the control group, 165 (81%) of 203 cancers were invasive and 38 (19%) were in situ. The screen-reading workload was reduced by 44·3% using AI. INTERPRETATION: AI-supported mammography screening resulted in a similar cancer detection rate compared with standard double reading, with a substantially lower screen-reading workload, indicating that the use of AI in mammography screening is safe. The trial was thus not halted and the primary endpoint of interval cancer rate will be assessed in 100 000 enrolled participants after 2-years of follow up. FUNDING: Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and the Swedish governmental funding for clinical research (ALF).

False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the total number of false-positive recalls, including radiographic appearances and false-positive biopsies, in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST). METHODS: The prospective, population-based MBTST, with 14,848 participating women, was designed to compare one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to two-view digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. False-positive recall rates, radiographic appearances, and biopsy rates were analyzed. Comparisons were made between DBT, DM, and DBT + DM, both in total and in trial year 1 compared to trial years 2 to 5, with numbers, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The false-positive recall rate was higher with DBT, 1.6% (95% CI 1.4; 1.8), compared to screening with DM, 0.8% (95% CI 0.7; 1.0). The proportion of the radiographic appearance of stellate distortion was 37.3% (91/244) with DBT, compared to 24.0% (29/121) with DM. The false-positive recall rate with DBT during trial year 1 was 2.6% (95% CI 1.8; 3.5), then stabilized at 1.5% (95% CI 1.3; 1.8) during trial years 2 to 5. The percentage of stellate distortion with DBT was 50% (19/38) trial year 1 compared to 35.0% (72/206) trial years 2 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: The higher false-positive recall rate with DBT compared to DM was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings. The proportion of these findings, as well as the DBT false-positive recall rate, was reduced after the first trial year. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Assessment of false-positive recalls gives information on potential benefits and side effects in DBT screening. KEY POINTS: • The false-positive recall rate in a prospective digital breast tomosynthesis screening trial was higher compared to digital mammography, but still low compared to other trials. • The higher false-positive recall rate with digital breast tomosynthesis was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings; the proportion of these findings was reduced after the first trial year.

Anticipating artificial intelligence in mammography screening: views of Swedish breast radiologists.

OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly tested and integrated into breast cancer screening. Still, there are unresolved issues regarding its possible ethical, social and legal impacts. Furthermore, the perspectives of different actors are lacking. This study investigates the views of breast radiologists on AI-supported mammography screening, with a focus on attitudes, perceived benefits and risks, accountability of AI use, and potential impact on the profession. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of Swedish breast radiologists. As early adopter of breast cancer screening, and digital technologies, Sweden is a particularly interesting case to study. The survey had different themes, including: attitudes and responsibilities pertaining to AI, and AI's impact on the profession. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. Free texts and comments were analysed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Overall, respondents (47/105, response rate 44.8%) were highly experienced in breast imaging and had a mixed knowledge of AI. A majority (n=38, 80.8%) were positive/somewhat positive towards integrating AI in mammography screening. Still, many considered there to be potential risks to a high/somewhat high degree (n=16, 34.1%) or were uncertain (n=16, 34.0%). Several important uncertainties were identified, such as defining liable actor(s) when AI is integrated into medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Swedish breast radiologists are largely positive towards integrating AI in mammography screening, but there are significant uncertainties that need to be addressed, especially regarding risks and responsibilities. The results stress the importance of understanding actor-specific and context-specific challenges to responsible implementation of AI in healthcare.

Mammographic density and interval cancers in mammographic screening: Moving towards more personalized screening.

PURPOSE: The European Society on Breast Imaging has recommended supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) every two to four years for women with mammographically dense breasts. This may not be feasible in many screening programs. Also, the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer suggests not implementing screening with MRI. By analyzing interval cancers and time from screening to diagnosis by density, we present alternative screening strategies for women with dense breasts. METHODS: Our BreastScreen Norway cohort included 508 536 screening examinations, including 3125 screen-detected and 945 interval breast cancers. Time from screening to interval cancer was stratified by density measured by an automated software and classified into Volpara Density Grades (VDGs) 1-4. Examinations with volumetric density ≤3.4% were categorized as VDG1, 3.5%-7.4% as VDG2, 7.5%-15.4% as VDG3, and ≥15.5% as VDG4. Interval cancer rates were also determined by continuous density measures. RESULTS: Median time from screening to interval cancer was 496 (IQR: 391-587) days for VDG1, 500 (IQR: 350-616) for VDG2, 482 (IQR: 309-595) for VDG3 and 427 (IQR: 266-577) for VDG4. A total of 35.9% of the interval cancers among VDG4 were detected within the first year of the biennial screening interval. For VDG2, 26.3% were detected within the first year. The highest annual interval cancer rate (2.7 per 1000 examinations) was observed for VDG4 in the second year of the biennial interval. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening of women with extremely dense breasts may reduce the interval cancer rate and increase program-wide sensitivity, especially in settings where supplemental MRI screening is not feasible.

Malmö Breast ImaginG database: objectives and development.

Purpose: We describe the design and implementation of the Malmö Breast ImaginG (M-BIG) database, which will support research projects investigating various aspects of current and future breast cancer screening programs. Specifically, M-BIG will provide clinical data to:1.investigate the effect of breast cancer screening on breast cancer prognosis and mortality;2.develop and validate the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in breast image interpretation; and3.develop and validate image-based radiological breast cancer risk profiles. Approach: The M-BIG database is intended to include a wide range of digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations performed on women at the Mammography Clinic in Malmö, Sweden, from the introduction of DM in 2004 through 2020. Subjects may be included multiple times and for diverse reasons. The image data are linked to extensive clinical, diagnostic, and demographic data from several registries. Results: To date, the database contains a total of 451,054 examinations from 104,791 women. During the inclusion period, 95,258 unique women were screened. A total of 19,968 examinations were performed using DBT, whereas the rest used DM. Conclusions: We describe the design and implementation of the M-BIG database as a representative and accessible medical image database linked to various types of medical data. Work is ongoing to add features and curate the existing data.

Effects of tamoxifen on normal breast tissue histological composition: Results from a randomised six-arm placebo-controlled trial in healthy women.

Tamoxifen prevents recurrence of breast cancer and is suggested for preventive risk-reducing therapy. Tamoxifen reduces mammographic density, a proxy for therapy response, but little is known about its effects in remodelling normal breast tissue. Our study, a substudy within the double-blinded dose-determination trial KARISMA, investigated tamoxifen-specific changes in breast tissue composition and histological markers in healthy women. We included 83 healthy women randomised to 6 months daily intake of 20, 10, 5, 2.5, 1 mg of tamoxifen or placebo. The groups were combined to "no dose" (0-1 mg), "low-dose" (2.5-5 mg) or "high-dose" (10-20 mg) of tamoxifen. Ultrasound-guided biopsies were collected before and after tamoxifen exposure. In each biopsy, epithelial, stromal and adipose tissues was quantified, and expression of epithelial and stromal Ki67, oestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) analysed. Mammographic density using STRATUS was measured at baseline and end-of-tamoxifen-exposure. We found that different doses of tamoxifen reduced mammographic density and glandular-epithelial area in premenopausal women and associated with reduced epithelium and increased adipose tissue. High-dose tamoxifen also decreased epithelial ER and PR expressions in premenopausal women. Premenopausal women with the greatest reduction in proliferation also had the greatest epithelial reduction. In postmenopausal women, high-dose tamoxifen decreased the epithelial area with no measurable density decrease. Tamoxifen at both low and high doses influences breast tissue composition and expression of histological markers in the normal breast. Our findings connect epithelial proliferation with tissue remodelling in premenopausal women and provide novel insights to understanding biological mechanisms of primary prevention with tamoxifen.

Mammographic calcifications undergoing percutaneous biopsy: outcome in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the positive predictive values (PPVs) of BI-RADS categories used to assess pure mammographic calcifications in women with and without a previous history of breast cancer (PHBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, all consecutive pure mammographic calcifications (n = 320) undergoing a stereotactic biopsy between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Mammograms were evaluated in consensus by two radiologists according to BI-RADS and blinded to patient history and pathology results. Final pathologic results were used as the standard of reference. PPV of BI-RADS categories were compared between the two groups. Data were evaluated using standard statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-eight patients (274 lesions, median age 54 years, inter-quartile range, 50-65 years) with a PHBC (n = 46) and without a PHBC (n = 222) were included. Overall PPVs were the following: BI-RADS 2, 0% (0 of 56); BI-RADS 3, 9.1% (1 of 11); BI-RADS 4a, 16.2% (6 of 37); BI-RADS 4b, 37.5% (48 of 128); BI-RADS 4c, 47.3% (18 of 38) and BI-RADS 5, 100% (4 of 4). The PPV of BI-RADS categories was similar in patients with and without a PHBC (P = .715). Calcifications were more often malignant in patients with a PHBC older than 10 years (47.3%, 9 of 19) compared to 1-2 years (25%, 1 of 4), 2-5 years (20%, 2 of 10) and 5-10 years (0%, of 13) from the first breast cancer (P = .005). CONCLUSION: PPV of mammographic calcifications is similar in women with or without PHBC when BI-RADS classification is strictly applied. A higher risk of malignancy was observed in patients with a PHBC longer than 10 years.

Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection. © RSNA, 2022.

An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening.

BACKGROUND: Although digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer screen-detection compared to digital mammography (DM), there is less evidence on comparative screening outcomes by age and breast density, and inconsistent evidence on its effect on recall rate. METHOD: We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis from DBT screening studies (identified to November, 30 2019) that contributed to the study protocol. We estimated and compared cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) for recall for DBT and DM screening. Two-stage random-effects meta-analyses of detection outcomes adjusted for study and age, and were estimated in age and density subgroups. Screen-detected cancer characteristics were summarized descriptively within studies and screening-groups. RESULTS: Four prospective studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants and 170,764 DM-screened participants. Age-adjusted pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM was 25.49 of 10,000 (95% CI:6.73-44.25). There was suggestive evidence of a higher CDR for DBT compared to DM in the high-density (35.19 of 10,000; 95% CI:17.82-56.56) compared to low-density (17.4 of 10,000; 95% CI:7.62-27.18) group (P = .08). Pooled CDR difference between DBT and DM did not differ across age-groups (P = .71). Age-adjusted recall rate difference was 0.18% (95% CI:-0.80-1.17), indicating no difference between DBT and DM- this finding did not differ across age-groups (P = .96). Recall PPV was higher for DBT than DM with an estimated rate ratio of 1.31 (95% CI:1.07-1.61). DISCUSSION: DBT improved CDR compared to DM in all age and density groups. DBT also had higher recall PPV than DM, although further research is needed to explore the heterogeneity in recall rates across studies.

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Missed Cancers at Digital Mammography That Were Detected at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: To investigate how an artificial intelligence (AI) system performs at digital mammography (DM) from a screening population with ground truth defined by digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and whether AI could detect breast cancers at DM that had originally only been detected at DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this secondary analysis of data from a prospective study, DM examinations from 14 768 women (mean age, 57 years), examined with both DM and DBT with independent double reading in the MalmÓ§ Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01091545; data collection, 2010-2015), were analyzed with an AI system. Of 136 screening-detected cancers, 95 cancers were detected at DM and 41 cancers were detected only at DBT. The system identifies suspicious areas in the image, scored 1-100, and provides a risk score of 1 to 10 for the whole examination. A cancer was defined as AI detected if the cancer lesion was correctly localized and scored at least 62 (threshold determined by the AI system developers), therefore resulting in the highest examination risk score of 10. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and detection performance was analyzed with receiver operating characteristics. RESULTS: The highest examination risk score was assigned to 10% (1493 of 14 786) of the examinations. With 90.8% specificity, the AI system detected 75% (71 of 95) of the DM-detected cancers and 44% (18 of 41) of cancers at DM that had originally been detected only at DBT. The majority were invasive cancers (17 of 18). CONCLUSION: Almost half of the additional DBT-only screening-detected cancers in the MBTST were detected at DM with AI. AI did not reach double reading performance; however, if combined with double reading, AI has the potential to achieve a substantial portion of the benefit of DBT screening.Keywords: Computer-aided Diagnosis, Mammography, Breast, Diagnosis, Classification, Application DomainClinical trial registration no. NCT01091545© RSNA, 2021.

Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up. METHODS: Using individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data. FINDINGS: Four prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005). INTERPRETATION: Although heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.

High-grade extracellular vesicles preparation by combined size-exclusion and affinity chromatography.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have recently gained growing interest for their diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Despite this, few protocols have been reported for the isolation of EVs with preserved biological function. Most EV purification methods include a precipitation step that results in aggregation of vesicles and most available techniques do not efficiently separate the various types of EVs such as exosomes and ectosomes, which are involved in distinct biological processes. For this reason, we developed a new two-step fast performance liquid chromatography (FPLC) protocol for purification of large numbers of EVs. The method comprises size exclusion chromatography followed by immobilized metal affinity chromatography, which is enabled by expression of poly-histidine tagged folate receptor α in the parental cells. Characterisation and comparison of the EVs obtained by this method to EVs purified by differential centrifugation, currently the most common method to isolate EVs, demonstrated higher purity and more selective enrichment of exosomes in EV preparations using our FPLC method, as assessed by comparison of marker proteins and density distribution. Our studies reveal new possibilities for the isolation of defined subpopulations of EVs with preserved biological function that can easily be upscaled for production of larger amounts of EVs.

Methanogenesis in the Digestive Tracts of the Tropical Millipedes Archispirostreptus gigas (Diplopoda, Spirostreptidae) and Epibolus pulchripes (Diplopoda, Pachybolidae).

Methanogens represent the final decomposition step in anaerobic degradation of organic matter, occurring in the digestive tracts of various invertebrates. However, factors determining their community structure and activity in distinct gut sections are still debated. In this study, we focused on the tropical millipede species Archispirostreptus gigas (Diplopoda, Spirostreptidae) and Epibolus pulchripes (Diplopoda, Pachybolidae), which release considerable amounts of methane. We aimed to characterize relationships between physicochemical parameters, methane production rates, and methanogen community structure in the two major gut sections, midgut and hindgut. Microsensor measurements revealed that both sections were strictly anoxic, with reducing conditions prevailing in both millipedes. Hydrogen concentration peaked in the anterior hindgut of E. pulchripes. In both species, the intestinal pH was significantly higher in the hindgut than in the midgut. An accumulation of acetate and formate in the gut indicated bacterial fermentation activities in the digestive tracts of both species. Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA genes showed a prevalence of Methanobrevibacter spp. (Methanobacteriales), accompanied by a small fraction of so-far-unclassified "Methanomethylophilaceae" (Methanomassiliicoccales), in both species, which suggests that methanogenesis is mostly hydrogenotrophic. We conclude that anoxic conditions, negative redox potential, and bacterial production of hydrogen and formate promote gut colonization by methanogens. The higher activities of methanogens in the hindgut are explained by the higher pH of this compartment and their association with ciliates, which are restricted to this compartment and present an additional source of methanogenic substrates. IMPORTANCE Methane (CH4) is the second most important atmospheric greenhouse gas after CO2 and is believed to account for 17% of global warming. Methanogens are a diverse group of archaea and can be found in various anoxic habitats, including digestive tracts of plant-feeding animals. Termites, cockroaches, the larvae of scarab beetles, and millipedes are the only arthropods known to host methanogens and emit large amounts of methane. Millipedes are ranked as the third most important detritivores after termites and earthworms, and they are considered keystone species in many terrestrial ecosystems. Both methane-producing and non-methane-emitting species of millipedes have been observed, but what limits their methanogenic potential is not known. In the present study, we show that physicochemical gut conditions and the distribution of symbiotic ciliates are important factors determining CH4 emission in millipedes. We also found close similarities to other methane-emitting arthropods, which might be associated with their similar plant-feeding habits.

Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Tumor Characteristics in the Prospective Population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Background Interval cancer rates can be used to evaluate whether screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) contributes to a screening benefit. Purpose To compare interval cancer rates and tumor characteristics in DBT screening to those in a contemporary population screened with digital mammography (DM). Materials and Methods The prospective population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) was designed to compare one-view DBT to two-view DM in breast cancer detection. The interval cancer rates and cancer characteristics in the MBTST were compared with an age-matched contemporary control group, screened with two-view DM at the same center. Conditional logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results There were 14 848 women who were screened with DBT and DM in the MBTST between January 2010 and February 2015. The trial women were matched with two women of the same age and screening occasion at DM screening during the same period. Matches for 13 369 trial women (mean age, 56 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were found with 26 738 women in the control group (mean age, 56 years ± 10). The interval cancer rate in the MBTST was 1.6 per 1000 screened women (21 of 13 369; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.4) compared with 2.8 per 1000 screened women in the control group (76 of 26 738 [95% CI: 2.2, 3.6]; conditional odds ratio, 0.6 [95% CI: 0.3, 0.9]; P = .02). The invasive interval cancers in the MBTST and in the control group showed in general high Ki-67 (63% [12 of 19] and 75% [54 of 72]), and low proportions of luminal A-like subtype (26% [five of 19] and 17% [12 of 72]), respectively. Conclusion The reduced interval cancer rate after screening with digital breast tomosynthesis compared with a contemporary age-matched control group screened with digital mammography might translate into screening benefits. Interval cancers in the trial generally had nonfavorable characteristics. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann in this issue.