Early Indicators of the Impact of Using AI in Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer.

Background Retrospective studies have suggested that using artificial intelligence (AI) may decrease the workload of radiologists while preserving mammography screening performance. Purpose To compare workload and screening performance for two cohorts of women who underwent screening before and after AI system implementation. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 50-69-year-old women who underwent biennial mammography screening in the Capital Region of Denmark. Before AI system implementation (October 1, 2020, to November 17, 2021), all screenings involved double reading. For screenings conducted after AI system implementation (November 18, 2021, to October 17, 2022), likely normal screenings (AI examination score ≤5 before May 3, 2022, or ≤7 on or after May 3, 2022) were single read by one of 19 senior full-time breast radiologists. The remaining screenings were read by two radiologists with AI-assisted decision support. Biopsy and surgical outcomes were retrieved between October 1, 2020, and April 15, 2023, ensuring at least 180 days of follow-up. Screening metrics were compared using the χ2 test. Reading workload reduction was measured as saved screening reads. Results In total, 60 751 and 58 246 women were screened before and after AI system implementation, respectively (median age, 58 years [IQR, 54-64 years] for both cohorts), with a median screening interval before AI of 845 days (IQR, 820-878 days) and with AI of 993 days (IQR, 968-1013 days; P < .001). After AI system implementation, the recall rate decreased by 20.5% (3.09% before AI [1875 of 60 751] vs 2.46% with AI [1430 of 58 246]; P < .001), the cancer detection rate increased (0.70% [423 of 60 751] vs 0.82% [480 of 58 246]; P = .01), the false-positive rate decreased (2.39% [1452 of 60 751] vs 1.63% [950 of 58 246]; P < .001), the positive predictive value increased (22.6% [423 of 1875] vs 33.6% [480 of 1430]; P < .001), the rate of small cancers (≤1 cm) increased (36.6% [127 of 347] vs 44.9% [164 of 365]; P = .02), the rate of node-negative cancers was unchanged (76.7% [253 of 330] vs 77.8% [273 of 351]; P = .73), and the rate of invasive cancers decreased (84.9% [359 of 423] vs 79.6% [382 of 480]; P = .04). The reading workload was reduced by 33.5% (38 977 of 116 492 reads). Conclusion In a population-based mammography screening program, using AI reduced the overall workload of breast radiologists while improving screening performance. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Friedewald in this issue.

Re-attendance in supplemental breast MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial for women with extremely dense breasts.

OBJECTIVES: Supplemental MRI screening improves early breast cancer detection and reduces interval cancers in women with extremely dense breasts in a cost-effective way. Recently, the European Society of Breast Imaging recommended offering MRI screening to women with extremely dense breasts, but the debate on whether to implement it in breast cancer screening programs is ongoing. Insight into the participant experience and willingness to re-attend is important for this discussion. METHODS: We calculated the re-attendance rates of the second and third MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial. Moreover, we calculated age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) to study the association between characteristics and re-attendance. Women who discontinued MRI screening were asked to provide one or more reasons for this. RESULTS: The re-attendance rates were 81.3% (3458/4252) and 85.2% (2693/3160) in the second and third MRI screening round, respectively. A high age (> 65 years), a very low BMI, lower education, not being employed, smoking, and no alcohol consumption were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Moderate or high levels of pain, discomfort, or anxiety experienced during the previous MRI screening round were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Finally, a plurality of women mentioned an examination-related inconvenience as a reason to discontinue screening (39.1% and 34.8% in the second and third screening round, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The willingness of women with dense breasts to re-attend an ongoing MRI screening study is high. However, emphasis should be placed on improving the MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate if widespread supplemental MRI screening is implemented. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For many women, MRI is an acceptable screening method, as re-attendance rates were high - even for screening in a clinical trial setting. To further enhance the (re-)attendance rate, one possible approach could be improving the overall MRI experience. KEY POINTS: • The willingness to re-attend in an ongoing MRI screening study is high. • Pain, discomfort, and anxiety in the previous MRI screening round were related to lower re-attendance rates. • Emphasis should be placed on improving MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate in supplemental MRI screening.

Assessing Breast Cancer Risk by Combining AI for Lesion Detection and Mammographic Texture.

Background Recent mammography-based risk models can estimate short-term or long-term breast cancer risk, but whether risk assessment may improve by combining these models has not been evaluated. Purpose To determine whether breast cancer risk assessment improves when combining a diagnostic artificial intelligence (AI) system for lesion detection and a mammographic texture model. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included Danish women consecutively screened for breast cancer at mammography from November 2012 to December 2015 who had at least 5 years of follow-up data. Examinations were evaluated for short-term risk using a commercially available diagnostic AI system for lesion detection, which produced a score to indicate the probability of cancer. A mammographic texture model, trained on a separate data set, assessed textures associated with long-term cancer risk. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis was used to evaluate both the individual and combined performance of the AI and texture models for the prediction of future cancers in women with a negative screening mammogram, including those with interval cancers diagnosed within 2 years of screening and long-term cancers diagnosed 2 years or more after screening. AUCs were compared using the DeLong test. Results The Danish screening cohort included 119 650 women (median age, 59 years [IQR, 53-64 years]), of whom 320 developed interval cancers and 1401 developed long-term cancers. The combination model achieved a higher AUC for interval and long-term cancers grouped together than either the diagnostic AI (AUC, 0.73 vs 0.70; P < .001) or the texture risk (AUC, 0.73 vs 0.66; P < .001) models. The 10% of women with the highest combined risk identified by the combination model accounted for 44.1% (141 of 320) of interval cancers and 33.7% (472 of 1401) of long-term cancers. Conclusion Combining a diagnostic AI system and mammographic texture model resulted in improved risk assessment for interval cancers and long-term cancers and enabled identification of women at high risk. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Poynton and Slanetz in this issue.

Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

BACKGROUND: Extremely dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography. Data are needed on the use of supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve early detection and reduce interval breast cancers in such patients. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the Netherlands, we assigned 40,373 women between the ages of 50 and 75 years with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only. The groups were assigned in a 1:4 ratio, with 8061 in the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the incidence of interval cancers during a 2-year screening period. RESULTS: The interval-cancer rate was 2.5 per 1000 screenings in the MRI-invitation group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000 screenings (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 3.7; P<0.001). Of the women who were invited to undergo MRI, 59% accepted the invitation. Of the 20 interval cancers that were diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the women who actually underwent MRI (0.8 per 1000 screenings) and 16 in those who did not accept the invitation (4.9 per 1000 screenings). The MRI cancer-detection rate among the women who actually underwent MRI screening was 16.5 per 1000 screenings (95% CI, 13.3 to 20.5). The positive predictive value was 17.4% (95% CI, 14.2 to 21.2) for recall for additional testing and 26.3% (95% CI, 21.7 to 31.6) for biopsy. The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings. Among the women who underwent MRI, 0.1% had either an adverse event or a serious adverse event during or immediately after the screening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of supplemental MRI screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period. (Funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht and others; DENSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01315015.).

An Artificial Intelligence-based Mammography Screening Protocol for Breast Cancer: Outcome and Radiologist Workload.

Background Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) systems to assist radiologists in reading mammograms could improve breast cancer screening efficiency. Purpose To investigate whether an AI system could detect normal, moderate-risk, and suspicious mammograms in a screening sample to safely reduce radiologist workload and evaluate across Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) densities. Materials and Methods This retrospective simulation study analyzed mammographic examination data consecutively collected from January 2014 to December 2015 in the Danish Capital Region breast cancer screening program. All mammograms were scored from 0 to 10, representing the risk of malignancy, using an AI tool. During simulation, normal mammograms (score < 5) would be excluded from radiologist reading and suspicious mammograms (score > recall threshold [RT]) would be recalled. Two radiologists read the remaining mammograms. The RT was fitted using another independent cohort (same institution) by matching to the radiologist sensitivity. This protocol was further applied to each BI-RADS density. Screening outcomes were measured using the sensitivity, specificity, workload, and false-positive rate. The AI-based screening was tested for noninferiority sensitivity compared with radiologist screening using the Farrington-Manning test. Specificities were compared using the McNemar test. Results The study sample comprised 114 421 screenings for breast cancer in 114 421 women, resulting in 791 screen-detected, 327 interval, and 1473 long-term cancers and 2107 false-positive screenings. The mean age of the women was 59 years ± 6 (SD). The AI-based screening sensitivity was 69.7% (779 of 1118; 95% CI: 66.9, 72.4) and was noninferior (P = .02) to the radiologist screening sensitivity of 70.8% (791 of 1118; 95% CI: 68.0, 73.5). The AI-based screening specificity was 98.6% (111 725 of 113 303; 95% CI: 98.5, 98.7), which was higher (P < .001) than the radiologist specificity of 98.1% (111 196 of 113 303; 95% CI: 98.1, 98.2). The radiologist workload was reduced by 62.6% (71 585 of 114 421), and 25.1% (529 of 2107) of false-positive screenings were avoided. Screening results were consistent across BI-RADS densities, although not significantly so for sensitivity. Conclusion Artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening could detect normal, moderate-risk, and suspicious mammograms in a breast cancer screening program, which may reduce the radiologist workload. AI-based screening performed consistently across breast densities. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Interval Cancer Detection Using a Neural Network and Breast Density in Women with Negative Screening Mammograms.

Background Inclusion of mammographic breast density (BD) in breast cancer risk models improves accuracy, but accuracy remains modest. Interval cancer (IC) risk prediction may be improved by combining assessments of BD and an artificial intelligence (AI) cancer detection system. Purpose To evaluate the performance of a neural network (NN)-based model that combines the assessments of BD and an AI system in the prediction of risk of developing IC among women with negative screening mammography results. Materials and Methods This retrospective nested case-control study performed with screening examinations included women who developed IC and women with normal follow-up findings (from January 2011 to January 2015). An AI cancer detection system analyzed all studies yielding a score of 1-10, representing increasing likelihood of malignancy. BD was automatically computed using publicly available software. An NN model was trained by combining the AI score and BD using 10-fold cross-validation. Bootstrap analysis was used to calculate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity at 90% specificity, and 95% CIs of the AI, BD, and NN models. Results A total of 2222 women with IC and 4661 women in the control group were included (mean age, 61 years; age range, 49-76 years). AUC of the NN model was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77,0.81), which was higher than AUC of the AI cancer detection system or BD alone (AUC, 0.73 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.76] and 0.69 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.71], respectively; P < .001 for both). At 90% specificity, the NN model had a sensitivity of 50.9% (339 of 666 women; 95% CI: 45.2, 56.3) for prediction of IC, which was higher than that of the AI system (37.5%; 250 of 666 women; 95% CI: 33.0, 43.7; P < .001) or BD percentage alone (22.4%; 149 of 666 women; 95% CI: 17.9, 28.5; P < .001). Conclusion The combined assessment of an artificial intelligence detection system and breast density measurements enabled identification of a larger proportion of women who would develop interval cancer compared with either method alone. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if artificial intelligence (AI) can discriminate recalled benign from recalled malignant mammographic screening abnormalities to improve screening performance. METHODS: A total of 2257 full-field digital mammography screening examinations, obtained 2011-2013, of women aged 50-69 years which were recalled for further assessment of 295 malignant out of 305 truly malignant lesions and 2289 benign lesions after independent double-reading with arbitration, were included in this retrospective study. A deep learning AI system was used to obtain a score (0-95) for each recalled lesion, representing the likelihood of breast cancer. The sensitivity on the lesion level and the proportion of women without false-positive ratings (non-FPR) resulting under AI were estimated as a function of the classification cutoff and compared to that of human readers. RESULTS: Using a cutoff of 1, AI decreased the proportion of women with false-positives from 89.9 to 62.0%, non-FPR 11.1% vs. 38.0% (difference 26.9%, 95% confidence interval 25.1-28.8%; p < .001), preventing 30.1% of reader-induced false-positive recalls, while reducing sensitivity from 96.7 to 91.1% (5.6%, 3.1-8.0%) as compared to human reading. The positive predictive value of recall (PPV-1) increased from 12.8 to 16.5% (3.7%, 3.5-4.0%). In women with mass-related lesions (n = 900), the non-FPR was 14.2% for humans vs. 36.7% for AI (22.4%, 19.8-25.3%) at a sensitivity of 98.5% vs. 97.1% (1.5%, 0-3.5%). CONCLUSION: The application of AI during consensus conference might especially help readers to reduce false-positive recalls of masses at the expense of a small sensitivity reduction. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the screening benefit of AI in practice. KEY POINTS: • Integrating the use of artificial intelligence in the arbitration process reduces benign recalls and increases the positive predictive value of recall at the expense of some sensitivity loss. • Application of the artificial intelligence system to aid the decision to recall a woman seems particularly beneficial for masses, where the system reaches comparable sensitivity to that of the readers, but with considerably reduced false-positives. • About one-fourth of all recalled malignant lesions are not automatically marked by the system such that their evaluation (AI score) must be retrieved manually by the reader. A thorough reading of screening mammograms by readers to identify suspicious lesions therefore remains mandatory.

Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial.

Background In the first (prevalent) supplemental MRI screening round of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, a considerable number of breast cancers were found at the cost of an increased false-positive rate (FPR). In incident screening rounds, a lower cancer detection rate (CDR) is expected due to a smaller pool of prevalent cancers, and a reduced FPR, due to the availability of prior MRI examinations. Purpose To investigate screening performance indicators of the second round (incidence round) of the DENSE trial. Materials and Methods The DENSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315015) is embedded within the Dutch population-based biennial mammography screening program for women aged 50-75 years. MRI examinations were performed between December 2011 and January 2016. Women were eligible for the second round when they again had a negative screening mammogram 2 years after their first MRI. The recall rate, biopsy rate, CDR, FPR, positive predictive values, and distributions of tumor characteristics were calculated and compared with results of the first round using 95% CIs and χ2 tests. Results A total of 3436 women (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 48-64 years) underwent a second MRI screening. The CDR was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 3.8, 9.0) compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 13.3, 20.5) in the first round. The FPR was 26.3 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 21.5, 32.3) in the second round versus 79.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 72.4, 87.9) in the first round. The positive predictive value for recall was 18% (20 of 110 participants recalled; 95% CI: 12.1, 26.4), and the positive predictive value for biopsy was 24% (20 of 84 participants who underwent biopsy; 95% CI: 16.0, 33.9), both comparable to that of the first round. All tumors in the second round were stage 0-I and node negative. Conclusion The incremental cancer detection rate in the second round was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations-compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations in the first round. This was accompanied by a strong reduction in the number of false-positive results. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Impact of artificial intelligence support on accuracy and reading time in breast tomosynthesis image interpretation: a multi-reader multi-case study.

OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increases sensitivity of mammography and is increasingly implemented in breast cancer screening. However, the large volume of images increases the risk of reading errors and reading time. This study aims to investigate whether the accuracy of breast radiologists reading wide-angle DBT increases with the aid of an artificial intelligence (AI) support system. Also, the impact on reading time was assessed and the stand-alone performance of the AI system in the detection of malignancies was compared to the average radiologist. METHODS: A multi-reader multi-case study was performed with 240 bilateral DBT exams (71 breasts with cancer lesions, 70 breasts with benign findings, 339 normal breasts). Exams were interpreted by 18 radiologists, with and without AI support, providing cancer suspicion scores per breast. Using AI support, radiologists were shown examination-based and region-based cancer likelihood scores. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and reading time per exam were compared between reading conditions using mixed-models analysis of variance. RESULTS: On average, the AUC was higher using AI support (0.863 vs 0.833; p = 0.0025). Using AI support, reading time per DBT exam was reduced (p < 0.001) from 41 (95% CI = 39-42 s) to 36 s (95% CI = 35- 37 s). The AUC of the stand-alone AI system was non-inferior to the AUC of the average radiologist (+0.007, p = 0.8115). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists improved their cancer detection and reduced reading time when evaluating DBT examinations using an AI reading support system. KEY POINTS: • Radiologists improved their cancer detection accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) when using an AI system for support, while simultaneously reducing reading time. • The stand-alone breast cancer detection performance of an AI system is non-inferior to the average performance of radiologists for reading digital breast tomosynthesis exams. • The use of an AI support system could make advanced and more reliable imaging techniques more accessible and could allow for more cost-effective breast screening programs with DBT.

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). INTERPRETATION: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. FUNDING: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.

Change in mammographic density across birth cohorts of Dutch breast cancer screening participants.

High mammographic density is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer. This study aimed to search for a possible birth cohort effect on mammographic density, which might contribute to explain the increasing breast cancer incidence. We separately analyzed left and right breast density of Dutch women from a 13-year period (2003-2016) in the breast cancer screening programme. First, we analyzed age-specific changes in average percent dense volume (PDV) across birth cohorts. A linear regression analysis (PDV vs. year of birth) indicated a small but statistically significant increase in women of: 1) age 50 and born from 1952 to 1966 (left, slope = 0.04, p = 0.003; right, slope = 0.09, p < 0.0001); 2) age 55 and born from 1948 to 1961 (right, slope = 0.04, p = 0.01); and 3) age 70 and born from 1933 to 1946 (right, slope = 0.05, p = 0.002). A decrease of total breast volume seemed to explain the increase in PDV. Second, we compared proportion of women with dense breast in women born in 1946-1953 and 1959-1966, and observed a statistical significant increase of proportion of highly dense breast in later born women, in the 51 to 55 age-groups for the left breast (around a 20% increase in each age-group), and in the 50 to 56 age-groups for the right breast (increase ranging from 27% to 48%). The study indicated a slight increase in mammography density across birth cohorts, most pronounced for women in their early 50s, and more marked for the right than for the left breast.

Amount of fibroglandular tissue FGT and background parenchymal enhancement BPE in relation to breast cancer risk and false positives in a breast MRI screening program : A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), measured at baseline on breast MRI, for breast cancer development and risk of false-positive findings in women at increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: Negative baseline MRI scans of 1533 women participating in a screening program for women at increased risk for breast cancer between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2014, were selected. Automated tools based on deep learning were used to obtain quantitative measures of FGT and BPE. Logistic regression using forward selection was used to assess relationships between FGT, BPE, cancer detection, false-positive recall, and false-positive biopsy. RESULTS: Sixty cancers were detected in follow-up. FGT was only associated to short-term cancer risk; BPE was not associated with cancer risk. High FGT and BPE did lead to more false-positive recalls at baseline (OR 1.259, p = 0.050, and OR 1.475, p = 0.003) and to more frequent false-positive biopsies at baseline (OR 1.315, p = 0.049, and OR 1.807, p = 0.002), but were not predictive for false-positive findings in subsequent screening rounds. CONCLUSIONS: FGT and BPE, measured on baseline MRI, are not predictive for overall breast cancer development in women at increased risk. High FGT and BPE lead to more false-positive findings at baseline. KEY POINTS: • Amount of fibroglandular tissue is only predictive for short-term breast cancer risk in women at increased risk. • Background parenchymal enhancement measured on baseline MRI is not predictive for breast cancer development in women at increased risk. • High amount of fibroglandular tissue and background parenchymal enhancement lead to more false-positive findings at baseline MRI.

The added value of mammography in different age-groups of women with and without BRCA mutation screened with breast MRI.

BACKGROUND: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive imaging method for breast cancer detection and is therefore offered as a screening technique to women at increased risk of developing breast cancer. However, mammography is currently added from the age of 30 without proven benefits. The purpose of this study is to investigate the added cancer detection of mammography when breast MRI is available, focusing on the value in women with and without BRCA mutation, and in the age groups above and below 50 years. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study evaluated 6553 screening rounds in 2026 women at increased risk of breast cancer (1 January 2003 to 1 January 2014). Risk category (BRCA mutation versus others at increased risk of breast cancer), age at examination, recall, biopsy, and histopathological diagnosis were recorded. Cancer yield, false positive recall rate (FPR), and false positive biopsy rate (FPB) were calculated using generalized estimating equations for separate age categories (< 40, 40-50, 50-60, ≥ 60 years). Numbers of screens needed to detect an additional breast cancer with mammography (NSN) were calculated for the subgroups. RESULTS: Of a total of 125 screen-detected breast cancers, 112 were detected by MRI and 66 by mammography: 13 cancers were solely detected by mammography, including 8 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ. In BRCA mutation carriers, 3 of 61 cancers were detected only on mammography, while in other women 10 of 64 cases were detected with mammography alone. While 77% of mammography-detected-only cancers were detected in women ≥ 50 years of age, mammography also added more to the FPR in these women. Below 50 years the number of mammographic examinations needed to find an MRI-occult cancer was 1427. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography is of limited added value in terms of cancer detection when breast MRI is available for women of all ages who are at increased risk. While the benefit appears slightly larger in women over 50 years of age without BRCA mutation, there is also a substantial increase in false positive findings in these women.

The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Texture patterns have been shown to improve breast cancer risk segregation in addition to area-based mammographic density. The additional value of texture pattern scores on top of volumetric mammographic density measures in a large screening cohort has never been studied. METHODS: Volumetric mammographic density and texture pattern scores were assessed automatically for the first available digital mammography (DM) screening examination of 51,400 women (50-75 years of age) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. The texture assessment method was developed in a previous study and validated in the current study. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed at the first available digital screening examination were excluded. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-6.2) years, 301 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. The associations between texture pattern scores, volumetric breast density measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Discriminatory performance was assessed using c-indices. RESULTS: The median age of the women at the time of the first available digital mammography examination was 56 years (IQR 51-63). Texture pattern scores were positively associated with breast cancer risk (hazard ratio (HR) 3.16 (95% CI 2.16-4.62) (p value for trend <0.001), for quartile (Q) 4 compared to Q1). The c-index of texture was 0.61 (95% CI 0.57-0.64). Dense volume and percentage dense volume showed positive associations with breast cancer risk (HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.32-2.59) (p value for trend <0.001) and HR 2.17 (95% CI 1.51-3.12) (p value for trend <0.001), respectively, for Q4 compared to Q1). When adding texture measures to models with dense volume or percentage dense volume, c-indices increased from 0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.59) to 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) (p < 0.001) and from 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) to 0.60 (95% CI 0.57-0.63) (p = 0.054), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-learning-based texture pattern scores, measured automatically on digital mammograms, are associated with breast cancer risk, independently of volumetric mammographic density, and augment the capacity to discriminate between future breast cancer and non-breast cancer cases.

Influence of Risk Category and Screening Round on the Performance of an MR Imaging and Mammography Screening Program in Carriers of the BRCA Mutation and Other Women at Increased Risk.

Purpose To evaluate the real-life performance of a breast cancer screening program for women with different categories of increased breast cancer risk with multiple follow-up rounds in an academic hospital with a large screening population. Materials and Methods Screening examinations (magnetic resonance [MR] imaging and mammography) for women at increased breast cancer risk (January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2014) were evaluated. Risk category, age, recall for workup of screening-detected abnormalities, biopsy, and histopathologic diagnosis were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of biopsy, cancer detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for first and follow-up rounds. Results There were 8818 MR and 6245 mammographic examinations performed in 2463 women. Documented were 170 cancers; of these, there were 129 screening-detected cancers, 16 interval cancers, and 25 cancers discovered at prophylactic mastectomy. Overall sensitivity was 75.9% including the cancers discovered at prophylactic mastectomy (95% confidence interval: 69.5%, 82.4%) and 90.0% excluding those cancers (95% confidence interval: 83.3%, 93.7%). Sensitivity was lowest for carriers of the BRCA1 mutation (66.1% and 81.3% when including and not including cancers in prophylactic mastectomy specimens, respectively). Specificity was higher at follow-up (96.5%; 95% confidence interval: 96.0%, 96.9%) than in first rounds (85.1%; 95% confidence interval: 83.4%, 86.5%) and was high for both MR imaging (97.1%; 95% confidence interval: 96.7%, 97.5%) and mammography (98.7%; 95% confidence interval: 98.3%, 99.0%). Positive predictive value of recall and positive predictive value of biopsy were lowest in women who had only a family history of breast cancer. Conclusion Screening performance was dependent on risk category. Sensitivity was lowest in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation. The specificity of high-risk breast screening improved at follow-up rounds. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Using deep convolutional neural networks to identify and classify tumor-associated stroma in diagnostic breast biopsies.

The breast stromal microenvironment is a pivotal factor in breast cancer development, growth and metastases. Although pathologists often detect morphologic changes in stroma by light microscopy, visual classification of such changes is subjective and non-quantitative, limiting its diagnostic utility. To gain insights into stromal changes associated with breast cancer, we applied automated machine learning techniques to digital images of 2387 hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue sections of benign and malignant image-guided breast biopsies performed to investigate mammographic abnormalities among 882 patients, ages 40-65 years, that were enrolled in the Breast Radiology Evaluation and Study of Tissues (BREAST) Stamp Project. Using deep convolutional neural networks, we trained an algorithm to discriminate between stroma surrounding invasive cancer and stroma from benign biopsies. In test sets (928 whole-slide images from 330 patients), this algorithm could distinguish biopsies diagnosed as invasive cancer from benign biopsies solely based on the stromal characteristics (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve = 0.962). Furthermore, without being trained specifically using ductal carcinoma in situ as an outcome, the algorithm detected tumor-associated stroma in greater amounts and at larger distances from grade 3 versus grade 1 ductal carcinoma in situ. Collectively, these results suggest that algorithms based on deep convolutional neural networks that evaluate only stroma may prove useful to classify breast biopsies and aid in understanding and evaluating the biology of breast lesions.

Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of computer-aided-detection (CAD) software for automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) on reading time (RT) and performance in screening for breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Unilateral ABUS examinations of 120 women with dense breasts were randomly selected from a multi-institutional archive of cases including 30 malignant (20/30 mammography-occult), 30 benign, and 60 normal cases with histopathological verification or ≥ 2 years of negative follow-up. Eight radiologists read once with (CAD-ABUS) and once without CAD (ABUS) with > 8 weeks between reading sessions. Readers provided a BI-RADS score and a level of suspiciousness (0-100). RT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and area under the curve (AUC) were compared. RESULTS: Average RT was significantly shorter using CAD-ABUS (133.4 s/case, 95% CI 129.2-137.6) compared with ABUS (158.3 s/case, 95% CI 153.0-163.3) (p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 0.84 for CAD-ABUS (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and ABUS (95% CI 0.78-0.88) (p = 0.90). Three out of eight readers showed significantly higher specificity using CAD. Pooled specificity (0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.75 vs. 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, p = 0.08) and PPV (0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55 vs. 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.49, p = 0.07) were higher in CAD-ABUS vs. ABUS, respectively, albeit not significantly. Pooled AUC for CAD-ABUS was comparable with ABUS (0.82 vs. 0.83, p = 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: CAD software for ABUS may decrease the time needed to screen for breast cancer without compromising the screening performance of radiologists. KEY POINTS: • ABUS with CAD software may speed up reading time without compromising radiologists' accuracy. • CAD software for ABUS might prevent non-detection of malignant breast lesions by radiologists. • Radiologists reading ABUS with CAD software might improve their specificity without losing sensitivity.

One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. RESULTS: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69-79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. CONCLUSION: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. KEY POINTS: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography. • One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT. • Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.

New reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis: better image quality for humans and computers.

Background The image quality of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) volumes depends greatly on the reconstruction algorithm. Purpose To compare two DBT reconstruction algorithms used by the Siemens Mammomat Inspiration system, filtered back projection (FBP), and FBP with iterative optimizations (EMPIRE), using qualitative analysis by human readers and detection performance of machine learning algorithms. Material and Methods Visual grading analysis was performed by four readers specialized in breast imaging who scored 100 cases reconstructed with both algorithms (70 lesions). Scoring (5-point scale: 1 = poor to 5 = excellent quality) was performed on presence of noise and artifacts, visualization of skin-line and Cooper's ligaments, contrast, and image quality, and, when present, lesion visibility. In parallel, a three-dimensional deep-learning convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) was trained (n = 259 patients, 51 positives with BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 calcifications) and tested (n = 46 patients, nine positives), separately with FBP and EMPIRE volumes, to discriminate between samples with and without calcifications. The partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (pAUC) of each 3D-CNN was used for comparison. Results EMPIRE reconstructions showed better contrast (3.23 vs. 3.10, P = 0.010), image quality (3.22 vs. 3.03, P < 0.001), visibility of calcifications (3.53 vs. 3.37, P = 0.053, significant for one reader), and fewer artifacts (3.26 vs. 2.97, P < 0.001). The 3D-CNN-EMPIRE had better performance than 3D-CNN-FBP (pAUC-EMPIRE = 0.880 vs. pAUC-FBP = 0.857; P < 0.001). Conclusion The new algorithm provides DBT volumes with better contrast and image quality, fewer artifacts, and improved visibility of calcifications for human observers, as well as improved detection performance with deep-learning algorithms.

Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: In mammography, breast compression is applied to reduce the thickness of the breast. While it is widely accepted that firm breast compression is needed to ensure acceptable image quality, guidelines remain vague about how much compression should be applied during mammogram acquisition. A quantitative parameter indicating the desirable amount of compression is not available. Consequently, little is known about the relationship between the amount of breast compression and breast cancer detectability. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of breast compression pressure in mammography on breast cancer screening outcomes. METHODS: We used digital image analysis methods to determine breast volume, percent dense volume, and pressure from 132,776 examinations of 57,179 women participating in the Dutch population-based biennial breast cancer screening program. Pressure was estimated by dividing the compression force by the area of the contact surface between breast and compression paddle. The data was subdivided into quintiles of pressure and the number of screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, false positives, and true negatives were determined for each group. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation between examinations of the same woman and for the effect of breast density and volume when estimating sensitivity, specificity, and other performance measures. Sensitivity was computed using interval cancers occurring between two screening rounds and using interval cancers within 12 months after screening. Pair-wise testing for significant differences was performed. RESULTS: Percent dense volume increased with increasing pressure, while breast volume decreased. Sensitivity in quintiles with increasing pressure was 82.0%, 77.1%, 79.8%, 71.1%, and 70.8%. Sensitivity based on interval cancers within 12 months was significantly lower in the highest pressure quintile compared to the third (84.3% vs 93.9%, p = 0.034). Specificity was lower in the lowest pressure quintile (98.0%) compared to the second, third, and fourth group (98.5%, p < 0.005). Specificity of the fifth quintile was 98.4%. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that if too much pressure is applied during mammography this may reduce sensitivity. In contrast, if pressure is low this may decrease specificity.