Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications.

Background Screening breast MRI is recommended for women with BRCA mutation or a history of chest radiation, but guidelines are equivocal for MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Purpose To evaluate screening breast MRI performance across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Materials and Methods All screening breast MRI examinations performed between 2011 and 2014 underwent retrospective medical record review. Indications for screening were as follows: BRCA mutation carrier or history of chest radiation (BRCA/RT group), family history of breast cancer (FH group), personal history of breast cancer (PH group), and history of high-risk lesion (HRL group). Screening performance metrics were calculated and compared among indications by using logistic regression adjusted for age, available prior MRI, mammographic density, examination year, and multiple risk factors. Results There were 5170 screening examinations in 2637 women (mean age, 52 years; range, 23-86 years); 67 breast cancers were detected. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was highest in the BRCA/RT group (26 per 1000 examinations; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16, 43 per 1000 examinations), intermediate for those in the PH and HRL groups (12 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 9, 17 per 1000 examinations] and 15 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 7, 32 per 1000 examinations], respectively), and lowest for those in the FH group (8 per 1000 examinations; 95% CI: 4, 14 per 1000 examinations). No difference in CDR was evident for the PH or HRL group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .14 and .18, respectively). The CDR was lower for the FH group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .02). No difference was evident in positive predictive value for biopsies performed (PPV3) for the BRCA/RT group (41%; 95% CI: 26%, 56%) compared with the PH (41%; 95% CI: 31%, 52%; P = .63) or HRL (36%, 95% CI: 17%, 60%; P = .37) groups. PPV3 was lower for the FH group (14%; 95% CI: 8%, 25%; P = .048). Conclusion Screening breast MRI should be considered for women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Worse screening MRI performance in patients with a family history of breast cancer suggests that better risk assessment strategies may benefit these women. © RSNA, 2019.

Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Cancer Risk Across Different High-Risk Patient Populations Undergoing Screening Breast MRI.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast cancer risk across different high-risk patient populations undergoing screening breast MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive screening breast MRI examinations performed between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. Multivariate logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was used to assess the association of the following variables with cancer risk: age, qualitative BPE prospective clinical assessment (minimal or mild vs moderate or marked), mammographic breast density (dense vs not dense), and screening indication (prioritized in the following order: BRCA carrier or history of thoracic radiation, breast cancer personal history, high-risk lesion, and breast cancer family history). Cancer diagnosis was defined as a tissue diagnosis of invasive or in situ carcinoma within 12 months of the screening MRI. RESULTS: The study cohort included 4686 screening MRI examinations performed in 2446 women, grouped by BPE as minimal or mild (3975/4686; 85%) versus moderate or marked (711/4686; 15%) and by screening indication as BRCA carrier or history of thoracic radiation (548/4686; 12%), breast cancer personal history (2541/4686; 54%), high-risk lesion (362/4686; 8%), and breast cancer family history (1235/4686; 26%). After adjustment for confounding variables, only BPE and screening indication were independent predictors of cancer diagnosis (p = 0.02 and p < 0.01, respectively). The odds ratio for developing cancer in the moderate or marked BPE group compared with the minimal or mild group was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.1-4.0), after adjusting for age, breast density, and screening indication. CONCLUSION: Increased BPE level is an independent predictor of breast cancer in women undergoing screening MRI for different high-risk indications.

Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group. RESULTS: For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.

Nature of crossing vessels in patients with radiographically normal ureteropelvic junctions: prevalence and anatomic characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of crossing vessels in asymptomatic patients with a radiographically normal ureteropelvic junction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the computed tomography angiography images of 601 patients who were evaluated for possible living organ donation at the University of Minnesota from 2005 to 2008. One patient had asymptomatic hydronephrosis and was excluded from the analysis. The prevalence and characteristics of crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction were determined, including vessel location, origin, size, distance from the ureteropelvic junction, and vessel type (artery or vein). RESULTS: The prevalence of crossing vessels at the radiographically normal ureteropelvic junction was 22.7%. A total of 163 crossing vessels were present in 136 patients; 60.1% were left-sided and 39.9% were right-sided. Arteries accounted for 81.0% of the crossing vessels and veins for 19.0%. Accessory lower pole renal vessels originating from the great vessels constituted 59.5% of the crossing vessels. The location of the crossing vessel relative to the ureteropelvic junction varied and included anterior (25.8%), anterolateral (36.8%), medial (14.6%), anteromedial (2.5%), lateral (12.9%), and posterior (7.4%). The mean diameter and mean distance of the crossing vessel from the ureteropelvic junction was 3.3 mm and 1.8 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of crossing vessels in asymptomatic, healthy patients with a radiographically normal ureteropelvic junction was 22.7%, lower than that seen in association with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The location of the crossing vessels varied about the ureteropelvic junction, and no location was consistently free of traversing vessels.