Assessment of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI in Predicting Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk.

Background Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of cancer-free breasts increases the risk of developing breast cancer; implications of quantitative BPE in ipsilateral breasts with breast cancer are largely unexplored. Purpose To determine whether quantitative BPE measurements in one or both breasts could be used to predict recurrence risk in women with breast cancer, using the Oncotype DX recurrence score as the reference standard. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective single-institution study included women diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2007 and January 2012 (development set) and between January 2012 and January 2017 (internal test set). Quantitative BPE was automatically computed using an in-house-developed computer algorithm in both breasts. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of BPE with Oncotype DX recurrence score binarized into high-risk (recurrence score >25) and low- or intermediate-risk (recurrence score ≤25) categories. Models including BPE measures were assessed for their ability to distinguish patients with high risk versus those with low or intermediate risk and the actual recurrence outcome. Results The development set included 127 women (mean age, 58 years ± 10.2 [SD]; 33 with high risk and 94 with low or intermediate risk) with an actual local or distant recurrence rate of 15.7% (20 of 127) at a minimum 10 years of follow-up. The test set included 60 women (mean age, 57.8 years ± 11.6; 16 with high risk and 44 with low or intermediate risk). BPE measurements quantified in both breasts were associated with increased odds of a high-risk Oncotype DX recurrence score (odds ratio range, 1.27-1.66 [95% CI: 1.02, 2.56]; P < .001 to P = .04). Measures of BPE combined with tumor radiomics helped distinguish patients with a high-risk Oncotype DX recurrence score from those with a low- or intermediate-risk score, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.94 in the development set and 0.79 in the test set. For the combined models, the negative predictive values were 0.97 and 0.93 in predicting actual distant recurrence and local recurrence, respectively. Conclusion Ipsilateral and contralateral DCE MRI measures of BPE quantified in patients with breast cancer can help distinguish patients with high recurrence risk from those with low or intermediate recurrence risk, similar to Oncotype DX recurrence score. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Zhou and Rahbar in this issue.

Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is often inadequate for screening women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). The ongoing prospective Tomosynthesis or Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, or TOCEM, trial includes three annual screenings with both DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Purpose To perform interim assessment of cancer yield, stage, and recall rate when CEM is added to DBT in women with PHBC. Materials and Methods From October 2019 to December 2022, two radiologists interpreted both examinations: Observer 1 reviewed DBT first and then CEM, and observer 2 reviewed CEM first and then DBT. Effects of adding CEM to DBT on incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR), cancer type and node status, recall rate, and other performance characteristics of the primary radiologist decisions were assessed. Results Among the participants (mean age at entry, 63.6 years ± 9.6 [SD]), 1273, 819, and 227 women with PHBC completed year 1, 2, and 3 screening, respectively. For observer 1, year 1 cancer yield was 20 of 1273 (15.7 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and 29 of 1273 (22.8 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 7.1 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 3.2, 13.4]) for DBT plus CEM (P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 cancer yield was four of 1046 (3.8 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and eight of 1046 (7.6 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 3.8 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 1.0, 7.6]) for DBT plus CEM (P = .001). Year 1 recall rate for observer 1 was 103 of 1273 (8.1%) for (incidence) DBT alone and 187 of 1273 (14.7%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 84 of 1273, 6.6% [95% CI: 5.3, 8.1]; P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 recall rate was 40 of 1046 (3.8%) for DBT and 92 of 1046 (8.8%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 52 of 1046, 5.0% [95% CI: 3.7, 6.3]; P < .001). In 18 breasts with cancer detected only at CEM after integration of both observers, 13 (72%) cancers were invasive (median tumor size, 0.6 cm) and eight of nine (88%) with staging were N0. Among 1883 screenings with adequate reference standard, there were three interval cancers (one at the scar, two in axillae). Conclusion CEM added to DBT increased early breast cancer detection each year in women with PHBC, with an accompanying approximately 5.0%-6.6% recall rate increase. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04085510 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Designing for sensory adaptation: what you see depends on what you've been looking at - Recommendations, guidelines and standards should reflect this.

Sensory systems continuously recalibrate their responses according to the current stimulus environment. As a result, perception is strongly affected by the current and recent context. These adaptative changes affect both sensitivity (e.g., habituating to noise, seeing better in the dark) and appearance (e.g. how things look, what catches attention) and adjust to many perceptual properties (e.g. from light level to the characteristics of someone's face). They therefore have a profound effect on most perceptual experiences, and on how and how well the senses work in different settings. Characterizing the properties of adaptation, how it manifests, and when it influences perception in modern environments can provide insights into the diversity of human experience. Adaptation could also be leveraged both to optimize perceptual abilities (e.g. in visual inspection tasks like radiology) and to mitigate unwanted consequences (e.g. exposure to potentially unhealthy stimulus environments).

Organizational Breast Cancer Data Mart: A Solution for Assessing Outcomes of Imaging and Treatment.

PURPOSE: In the United States, a comprehensive national breast cancer registry (CR) does not exist. Thus, care and coverage decisions are based on data from population subsets, other countries, or models. We report a prototype real-world research data mart to assess mortality, morbidity, and costs for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: With institutional review board approval and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliance, a multidisciplinary clinical and research data warehouse (RDW) expert group curated demographic, risk, imaging, pathology, treatment, and outcome data from the electronic health records (EHR), radiology (RIS), and CR for patients having breast imaging and/or a diagnosis of breast cancer in our institution from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020. Domains were defined by prebuilt views to extract data denormalized according to requirements from the existing RDW using an export, transform, load pattern. Data dictionaries were included. Structured query language was used for data cleaning. RESULTS: Five-hundred eighty-nine elements (EHR 311, RIS 211, and CR 67) were mapped to 27 domains; all, except one containing CR elements, had cancer and noncancer cohort views, resulting in a total of 53 views (average 12 elements/view; range, 4-67). EHR and RIS queries returned 497,218 patients with 2,967,364 imaging examinations and associated visit details. Cancer biology, treatment, and outcome details for 15,619 breast cancer cases were imported from the CR of our primary breast care facility for this prototype mart. CONCLUSION: Institutional real-world data marts enable comprehensive understanding of care outcomes within an organization. As clinical data sources become increasingly structured, such marts may be an important source for future interinstitution analysis and potentially an opportunity to create robust real-world results that could be used to support evidence-based national policy and care decisions for breast cancer.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography-guided Biopsy: Initial Trial and Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate lesion visibility and radiologist confidence during contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy. METHODS: Women with BI-RADS ≥4A enhancing breast lesions were prospectively recruited for 9-g vacuum-assisted CEM-guided biopsy. Breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), lesion characteristics (enhancement and conspicuity), radiologist confidence (scale 1-5), and acquisition times were collected. Signal intensities in specimens were analyzed. Patient surveys were collected. RESULTS: A cohort of 28 women aged 40-81 years (average 57) had 28 enhancing lesions (7/28, 25% malignant). Breast tissue was scattered (10/28, 36%) or heterogeneously dense (18/28, 64%) with minimal (12/28, 43%), mild (7/28, 25%), or moderate (9/28, 32%) BPE on CEM. Twelve non-mass enhancements, 11 masses, 3 architectural distortions, and 2 calcification groups demonstrated weak (12/28, 43%), moderate (14/28, 50%), or strong (2/28, 7%) enhancement. Specimen radiography demonstrated lesion enhancement in 27/28 (96%). Radiologists reported complete lesion removal on specimen radiography in 8/28 (29%). Average time from contrast injection to specimen radiography was 18 minutes (SD = 5) and, to post-procedure mammogram (PPM), 34 minutes (SD = 10). Contrast-enhanced mammography PPM was performed in 27/28 cases; 13/19 (68%) of incompletely removed lesions on specimen radiography showed residual enhancement; 6/19 (32%) did not. Across all time points, average confidence was 2.2 (SD = 1.2). Signal intensities of enhancing lesions were similar to iodine. Patients had an overall positive assessment. CONCLUSION: Lesion enhancement persisted through PPM and was visible on low energy specimen radiography, with an average "confident" score. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided breast biopsy is easily implemented clinically. Its availability will encourage adoption of CEM.

Communicating With Breast Imaging Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on Patient Care and Physician Wellness.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of COVID-19 on patient-breast radiologist interactions and evaluate the relationship between safety measure-constrained communication and physician wellbeing. METHODS: A 41-question survey on the perceived effect of COVID-19 on patient care was distributed from June 2020 to September 2020 to members of the Society of Breast Imaging and the National Consortium of Breast Centers. Non-radiologists and international members were excluded. Anxiety and psychological distress scores were calculated. A multivariable logistic model was used to identify demographic and mental health factors associated with responses. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-five surveys met inclusion criteria (23% response rate). Diminished ability to fulfill patients' emotional needs was reported by 46% (221/479), a response associated with younger age (OR, 0.8 per decade; P < 0.01), higher anxiety (OR, 2.3; P < 0.01), and higher psychological distress (OR, 2.2; P = 0.04). Personal protective equipment made patient communication more difficult for 88% (422/478), a response associated with younger age (OR, 0.8 per decade; P = 0.008), female gender (OR, 1.9; P < 0.01), and greater anxiety (OR, 2.6; P = 0.001). The inability to provide the same level of care as prior to COVID-19 was reported by 37% (177/481) and was associated with greater anxiety (OR, 3.4; P < 0.001) and psychological distress (OR, 1.7; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The majority of breast radiologists reported that COVID-19 has had a negative impact on patient care. This perception was more likely among younger radiologists and those with higher levels of anxiety and psychological distress.

Training Radiologists to Interpret Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Toward a Standardized Lexicon.

OBJECTIVE: Using terms adapted from the BI-RADS Mammography and MRI lexicons, we trained radiologists to interpret contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and assessed reliability of their description and assessment. METHODS: A 60-minute presentation on CEM and terminology was reviewed independently by 21 breast imaging radiologist observers. For 21 CEM exams with 31 marked findings, observers recorded background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) (minimal, mild, moderate, marked), lesion type (oval/round or irregular mass, or non-mass enhancement), intensity of enhancement (none, weak, medium, strong), enhancement quality (none, homogeneous, heterogeneous, rim), and BI-RADS assessment category (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5). "Expert" consensus of 3 other radiologists experienced in CEM was developed. Kappa statistic was used to assess agreement between radiologists and expert consensus, and between radiologists themselves, on imaging feature categories and final assessments. Reproducibility of specific feature descriptors was assessed as fraction of consensus-concordant responses. RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated moderate agreement for BPE, (mean kappa, 0.43; range, 0.05-0.69), and lowest reproducibility for "minimal." Agreement was substantial for lesion type (mean kappa, 0.70; range, 0.47-0.93), moderate for intensity of enhancement (mean kappa, 0.57; range, 0.44-0.76), and moderate for enhancement quality (mean kappa, 0.59; range, 0.20-0.78). Agreement on final assessment was fair (mean kappa, 0.26; range, 0.09-0.44), with BI-RADS category 3 the least reproducible. Decision to biopsy (BI-RADS 2-3 vs 4-5) showed moderate agreement with consensus (mean kappa, 0.54; range, -0.06-0.87). CONCLUSION: With minimal training, agreement for description of CEM findings by breast imaging radiologists was comparable to other BI-RADS lexicons.