Clinical Significance of Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Breast Cancer Risk Stratification.

BACKGROUND: Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is an established breast cancer risk factor. However, the relationship between BPE levels and breast cancer risk stratification remains unclear. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical relationship between BPE levels and breast cancer risk with covariate adjustments for age, ethnicity, and hormonal status. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: 954 screening breast MRI datasets representing 721 women divided into four cohorts: women with pathogenic germline breast cancer (BRCA) mutations (Group 1, N = 211), women with non-BRCA germline mutations (Group 2, N = 60), women without high-risk germline mutations but with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20% using the Tyrer-Cuzick model (Group 3, N = 362), and women with <20% lifetime risk (Group 4, N = 88). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T/axial non-fat-saturated T1, short tau inversion recovery, fat-saturated pre-contrast, and post-contrast T1-weighted images. ASSESSMENT: Data on age, body mass index, ethnicity, menopausal status, genetic predisposition, and hormonal therapy use were collected. BPE levels were evaluated by two breast fellowship-trained radiologists independently in accordance with BI-RADS, with a third breast fellowship-trained radiologist resolving any discordance. STATISTICAL TESTS: Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to adjust covariates, including age, ethnicity, menopausal status, hormonal treatments, and prior bilateral oophorectomy. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-squared test, and univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed, with an odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Weighted Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-reader variation. A P value <0.05 indicated a significant result. RESULTS: In the assessment of BPE, there was substantial agreement between the two interpreting radiologists (κ = 0.74). Patient demographics were not significantly different between patient groups after PSM. The BPE of Group 1 was significantly lower than that of Group 4 and Group 3 among premenopausal women. In estimating the BPE level, the OR of gene mutations was 0.35. DATA CONCLUSION: Adjusting for potential confounders, the BPE level of premenopausal women with BRCA mutations was significantly lower than that of non-high-risk women. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

SAVI SCOUT® localization of metastatic axillary lymph node prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for targeted axillary dissection: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: In clinically node-positive breast cancer, axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is optimized with targeted axillary dissection (TAD), which includes removal of the biopsy-proven metastatic lymph node (LN) in addition to sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Localization of the clipped node is currently performed post-NAC; however, technical limitations can make detection and localization of the treated LN challenging. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility of localizing the metastatic LN with a SAVI SCOUT® reflector (SAVI) prior to NAC for targeted removal at surgery. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with stage 2/3 breast cancer underwent ultrasound-guided localization of the biopsy-proven LN with SAVI prior to NAC. After NAC, patients with clinical response underwent TAD. Primary outcome measures were rate of successful localization, days between insertion of SAVI and axillary surgery, frequency of retrieval of clipped node, and frequency of SAVI-LN as SLN. RESULTS: After NAC, 23/25 (92%) had clinical axillary down-staging and underwent TAD. Two patients with persistent palpable axillary disease underwent ALND for initial staging. Axillary surgery was performed at an average of 141 days post-SAVI insertion and the SAVI was successfully retrieved in all cases. Among 23 patients undergoing TAD, the SAVI was retrieved within a LN in all patients, whereas clip migration was observed in two patients. The median SLN removed was 4, and SAVI-LN was SLN in 22/23 patients. Axillary pCR rate was 44%. CONCLUSION: Localizing a metastatic LN with SAVI reflector prior to NAC for targeted removal at surgery is feasible and may provide technical and logistical advantages over axillary localization post-NAC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT03411070.

A comparison of two non-radioactive alternatives to wire for the localization of non-palpable breast cancers.

PURPOSE: Multiple wire-free technologies for localization of non-palpable breast cancers have emerged as satisfactory alternatives to wire. However, no study has compared two non-radioactive wire-free approaches to one another. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among LOCalizer™ radiofrequency identification (RFID), SAVI Scout® (SAVI), and wire localization (WL). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of patients undergoing lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer at a single institution between August 2017 and February 2019. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on localization technique: RFID, SAVI or WL. Operative times and average tumor volumes were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Positive margin and re-excision rates were compared with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Among 104 patients who underwent lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer, 33 patients (31.7%) had RFID, 21 (20.2%) had SAVI, and 50 (48.0%) had WL. Operative times were 79 min for RFID, 81 min for SAVI, and 78 min for WL (p = 0.91). Volume of tissue resected was 36.3 cm3, 31.7 cm3, and 35.3 cm3 for RFID, SAVI, and WL, respectively (p = 0.84). Positive margin rates (RFID 3.0% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 8.0%, p = 0.67) and re-excision rates (RFID 6.1% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 10.0%, p = 0.82) were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Wire-free localization technologies have been compared to WL demonstrating similar efficacy. Our study suggests that RFID and SAVI Scout also perform similarly to one another. Physicians and institutions may consider more nuanced features of each localization system rather than performance alone when choosing a wire-free alternative.

Microchipping the breast: an effective new technology for localizing non-palpable breast lesions for surgery.

PURPOSE: Use of a wire to localize a non-palpable breast lesion for surgery is standard but archaic. We sought to evaluate a new radiofrequency localization system (RFLS) as an effective, non-radioactive alternative to the wire. METHODS: Patients who required surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion were consented for the study. Patients underwent localization with a radiofrequency Tag and surgical removal guided by the handheld LOCalizer probe. The primary study endpoint was successful placement and retrieval of the Tag, and secondary endpoints included marker migration; days prior to surgery of Tag insertion; patient, radiologist, and surgeon experience; distance of Tag from skin; and positive margin and re-excision rates for cancer. RESULTS: Fifty patients had successful placement and retrieval of the radiofrequency Tag. Likert questionnaire data revealed that most patients thought the procedure went smoothly and was easier than expected. Radiologists and surgeons thought that the Tag was as reliable as the wire. Of the 33 patients who had surgery for in situ or invasive cancer, one had a positive margin on final pathology (3%) and two underwent re-excision (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot study suggest that the RFLS is an effective localization system for non-palpable breast lesions intended for surgical removal. Unlike most other technologies, the LOCalizer probe detects distance from the Tag, and this unique feature may have contributed to the low positive margin rate seen in this study. The RFLS appears to offer advantages over current localization procedures and should be explored as an alternative to wire. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03202472.

Imaging for breast pain: A useful paradigm to promote breast cancer screening and reduce unnecessary breast imaging.

OBJECTIVE: Identify the proportion of patients presenting for diagnostic breast imaging with clinically insignificant breast pain who are eligible for screening mammography and analyze the impact of routing these patients to screening on resource utilization, healthcare spending and cancer detection. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive women ≥40 years old without a history of breast cancer who underwent diagnostic mammogram and breast ultrasound for clinically insignificant breast pain from 1/2022 to 4/2022. Patients were screen-eligible if their last bilateral mammogram was over 12 months prior to presentation. Patients with only screening views during diagnostic mammography were assumed to have a negative/benign screening mammogram. Costs were calculated using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule. RESULTS: 68 of 100 patients with breast pain were screen-eligible at time of diagnostic imaging. With a screen first approach, 47/68 would have had negative/benign screening mammograms, allowing for the availability of 47 diagnostic breast imaging appointments. The current workflow led to 100 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 29 follow-up ultrasounds, and 10 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $42,872.41. With a screen first approach, there would have been 68 screening mammograms, 53 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 10 follow-up ultrasounds, and 9 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $34,231.60. Two cancers were identified, both associated with suspicious mammographic findings. None would have been missed in a screen-first approach. DISCUSSION: Identifying screen-eligible patients with clinically insignificant breast pain and routing them to screening mammogram improves radiology resource allocation and decreases healthcare spending without missing any cancers.

Pretreatment visceral metastases in castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer: role in prediction versus actual site of disease progression.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the anatomic site(s) of initial disease progression in patients with castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the presence or absence of pre-treatment visceral metastases while on systemic therapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of mCRPC patients who have baseline and at least one follow up bone scan and CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP). Disease progression was determined by RECIST and/or ≥ 30% increase in automated bone scan lesion area score. Kaplan-Meier plot was used to estimate the median progression free survival and log-rank tests were used to compare anatomic sites. RESULTS: Of 203 patients, 61 (30%) had pre-treatment visceral metastases. Patients with baseline visceral disease were 1.5 times more likely to develop disease progression (HR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03-2.26). Disease progression was a result of worsening bone scan disease (42% (16/38)) versus visceral (32% (12/38)) or lymph node disease (3% (1/38)) by CT or a combination thereof (23% (9/38)). Median time to progression (TTP) did not differ by anatomic location of initial progression (p = 0.86). Development of new lesions occurred in 50% of those visceral patients with soft tissue only progression and was associated with a significantly longer TTP (3.1 months (2.8-4.3 months) than those with worsening of pre-existing lesions (1.8 months (1.6-2.7 months); p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pre-treatment visceral metastases in mCRPC are more likely to experience disease progression of bone disease with the initial anatomic site of progression similar to those without baseline visceral involvement.

Quantitative bone scan lesion area as an early surrogate outcome measure indicative of overall survival in metastatic prostate cancer.

A clinical validation of the bone scan lesion area (BSLA) as a quantitative imaging biomarker was performed in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BSLA was computed from whole-body bone scintigraphy at baseline and week 12 posttreatment in a cohort of 198 mCRPC subjects (127 treated and 71 placebo) from a clinical trial involving a different drug from the initial biomarker development. BSLA computation involved automated image normalization, lesion segmentation, and summation of the total area of segmented lesions on bone scan AP and PA views as a measure of tumor burden. As a predictive biomarker, treated subjects with baseline BSLA [Formula: see text] had longer survival than those with higher BSLA ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). As a surrogate outcome biomarker, subjects were categorized as progressive disease (PD) if the BSLA increased by a prespecified 30% or more from baseline to week 12 and non-PD otherwise. Overall survival rates between PD and non-PD groups were statistically different ([Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). Subjects without PD at week 12 had longer survival than subjects with PD: median 398 days versus 280 days. BSLA has now been demonstrated to be an early surrogate outcome for overall survival in different prostate cancer drug treatments.