Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.

Purpose To evaluate the value of mammography in detecting breast cancer in high-risk women undergoing screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods An ethics-approved, retrospective review of prospective databases was performed to identify outcomes of 3934 screening studies (1977 screening MR imaging examinations and 1957 screening mammograms) performed between January 2012 and July 2014 in 1249 high-risk women. Performance measures including recall and cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated for both mammography and MR imaging. Results A total of 45 cancers (33 invasive and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ) were diagnosed, 43 were seen with MR imaging and 14 with both mammography and MR imaging. Additional tests (further imaging and/or biopsy) were recommended in 461 screening MR imaging studies (recall rate, 23.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.5%, 25.2%), and mammography recalled 217 (recall rate, 11.1%; 95% CI: 9.7%, 12.6%). The cancer detection rate for MR imaging was 21.8 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 15.78, 29.19) and that for mammography was 7.2 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.92, 11.97; P < .001). Sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 96% and 78% respectively, and those of mammography were 31% and 89%, respectively (P < .001). Positive predictive value for MR imaging recalls was 9.3% (95% CI: 6.83%, 12.36%) and that for mammography recalls was 6.5% (95% CI: 3.57%, 10.59%). Conclusion Contemporaneous screening mammography did not have added value in detection of breast cancer for women who undergo screening MR imaging. Routine use of screening mammography in women undergoing screening breast MR imaging warrants reconsideration. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary edema in breast imaging setting.

Worldwide, many vaccines have been developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unilateral reactive axillary adenopathy related to the COVID-19 vaccine is a well-known occurrence. In addition, axillary edema has also been observed following COVID-19 vaccinations in patients undergoing breast MRI, and radiologists need to be aware of this possibility to avoid performing unnecessary work-up that can be costly to the health care system and be stressful for patients.

High-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: can underestimation be predicted?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of diagnosis of high-risk lesions at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (MRgVABB) and to determine whether underestimation may be predicted. METHODS: Retrospective review of the medical records of 161 patients who underwent MRgVABB was performed. The underestimation rate was defined as an upgrade of a high-risk lesion at MRgVABB to malignancy at surgery. Clinical data, MRI features of the biopsied lesions, and histological diagnosis of cases with and those without underestimation were compared. RESULTS: Of 161 MRgVABB, histology revealed 31 (19%) high-risk lesions. Of 26 excised high-risk lesions, 13 (50%) were upgraded to malignancy. The underestimation rates of lobular neoplasia, atypical apocrine metaplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and flat epithelial atypia were 50% (4/8), 100% (5/5), 50% (3/6) and 50% (1/2) respectively. There was no underestimation in the cases of benign papilloma without atypia (0/3), and radial scar (0/2). No statistically significant differences (p > 0.1) between the cases with and those without underestimation were seen in patient age, indications for breast MRI, size of lesion on MRI, morphological and kinetic features of biopsied lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging and clinical features cannot be used reliably to predict underestimation at MRgVABB. All high-risk lesions diagnosed at MRgVABB require surgical excision.

Tailored breast imaging during the first wave and preparedness for the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic caused by the new Coronavirus has changed the way patient care is provided worldwide. This review focuses on the description of the operational measures implemented in a breast imaging department in accordance with existing recommendations for the treatment of breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic to make optimal use of finite resources without interruption of essential imaging services for breast cancer patients. It will also apply during a second-wave of the pandemic, which, according to experts, is inevitable and requires us to be better prepared.

The value of breast MRI in high-risk patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer to exclude invasive disease in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Is there a role to choose wisely patients for sentinel node biopsy?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of clinically and mammographically occult disease using breast MRI in a cohort of cancer patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and the utmost indication of axillary assessment (sentinel node biopsy (SLNB)) for this side. A retrospective review of patients with unilateral invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from institutional MRI registry data (2004-2010) was conducted. Characteristics of patients undergoing CPM with breast MRI obtained less than 6 month before surgery were evaluated. A total of 2322 consecutive patients diagnosed with DCIS or stage I to III infiltrating breast cancer underwent preoperative breast MRI. Of these, 1376 patients (59.2%) had contralateral clinical breast exam and mammography without abnormalities; and 116 patients (4.9%) underwent CPM (28 excluded patients had breast MRI more than 6 months before CPM). The mean age of the 88 patients was 49 years (range 28-76 years). Two (2.3%) DCIS identified on surgical pathology specimen were not depicted by MRI and the 5 mm T1N0 invasive cancer (1.1%) was identified on MRI. Preoperative MRI showed 95% accuracy to demonstrate absence of occult disease with negative predicted value (NPV) of 98% (95% CI: 91.64-99.64%). Occult disease was present in 3.4% of CPM. MRI accurately identified the case of invasive cancer in this cohort. The high negative predictive value suggests that MRI can be used to select patients without consideration of SLNB for the contralateral side.

Sensitivity of a direct computer-aided detection system in full-field digital mammography for detection of microcalcifications not associated with mass or architectural distortion.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of a direct computer-aided detection (CAD) system (d-CAD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the detection of microcalcifications not associated with mass or architectural distortion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search of 1063 consecutive stereotactic core biopsies performed between 2002 and 2005 identified 196 patients with Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 and 5 microcalcifications not associated with mass or distortion detected exclusively by bilateral FFDM. A commercially available CAD system (Second Look, version 7.2) was retrospectively applied to the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views in these patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 35-84 years). Breast density, location and mammographic size of the lesion, distribution, and tumour histology were recorded and analysed by using chi(2), Fisher exact, or McNemar tests, when applicable. RESULTS: When using d-CAD, 71 of 74 malignant microcalcification cases (96%) and 101 of 122 benign microcalcifications (83%) were identified. There was a significant difference (P < .05) between CAD sensitivity on the craniocaudal view, 91% (68 of 75), vs CAD sensitivity on the mediolateral oblique view, 80% (60 of 75). The d-CAD sensitivity for dense breast tissue (American College of Radiology [ACR] density 3 and 4) was higher (97%) than d-CAD sensitivity (95%) for nondense tissue (ACR density 1 and 2), but the difference was not statically significant. All 28 malignant calcifications larger than 10 mm were detected by CAD, whereas the sensitivity for lesions small than or equal to 10 mm was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: D-CAD had a high sensitivity in the depiction of asymptomatic breast cancers, which were seen as microcalcifications on FFDM screening, with a sensitivity of d-CAD on the craniocaudal view being significantly better. All malignant microcalcifications larger than 10 mm were detected by d-CAD.

Nonenhancing breast malignancies on MRI: sonographic and pathologic correlation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the sonographic appearance and histopathologic basis of those malignancies of the breast that show non-enhancement on MRI. CONCLUSION: Breast malignancies with suspicious features on sonography may not be detected on MRI due to non-enhancement of the lesions. In such cases, we suggest the use of tissue sampling to differentiate between benign and malignant breast lesions.