Initial experience with a next-generation low-field MRI scanner: Potential for breast imaging?

PURPOSE: Broader clinical adoption of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) faces challenges such as limited availability and high procedural costs. Low-field technology has shown promise in addressing these challenges. We report our initial experience using a next-generation scanner for low-field breast MRI at 0.55T. METHODS: This initial cases series was part of an institutional review board-approved prospective study using a 0.55T scanner (MAGNETOM Free.Max, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen/Germany: height < 2 m, weight < 3.2 tons, no quench pipe) equipped with a seven-channel breast coil (Noras, Höchberg/Germany). A multiparametric breast MRI protocol consisting of dynamic T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted sequences was optimized for 0.55T. Two radiologists with 12 and 20 years of experience in breast MRI evaluated the examinations. RESULTS: Twelve participants (mean age: 55.3 years, range: 36-78 years) were examined. The image quality was diagnostic in all examinations and not impaired by relevant artifacts. Typical imaging phenotypes were visualized. The scan time for a complete, non-abbreviated breast MRI protocol ranged from 10:30 to 18:40 min. CONCLUSION: This initial case series suggests that low-field breast MRI is feasible at diagnostic image quality within an acceptable examination time.

METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII.

PURPOSE: To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. METHODS: We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. RESULT: In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. CONCLUSION: In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. KEY POINTS: • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score ( https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html ) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community ( https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics ).

Identification of impactful imaging biomarker: Clinical applications for breast and prostate carcinoma. / Ermittlung aussagekräftiger Bildgebungsbiomarker: Klinische Anwendungen bei Mamma- und Prostatakarzinomen.

BACKGROUND: Imaging biomarkers are quantitative parameters from imaging modalities, which are collected noninvasively, allow conclusions about physiological and pathophysiological processes, and may consist of single (monoparametric) or multiple parameters (bi- or multiparametric). METHOD: This review aims to present the state of the art for the quantification of multimodal and multiparametric imaging biomarkers. Here, the use of biomarkers using artificial intelligence will be addressed and the clinical application of imaging biomarkers in breast and prostate cancers will be explained. For the preparation of the review article, an extensive literature search was performed based on Pubmed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The results were evaluated and discussed for consistency and generality. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Different imaging biomarkers (multiparametric) are quantified based on the use of complementary imaging modalities (multimodal) from radiology, nuclear medicine, or hybrid imaging. From these techniques, parameters are determined at the morphological (e. g., size), functional (e. g., vascularization or diffusion), metabolic (e. g., glucose metabolism), or molecular (e. g., expression of prostate specific membrane antigen, PSMA) level. The integration and weighting of imaging biomarkers are increasingly being performed with artificial intelligence, using machine learning algorithms. In this way, the clinical application of imaging biomarkers is increasing, as illustrated by the diagnosis of breast and prostate cancers. KEY POINTS: · Imaging biomarkers are quantitative parameters to detect physiological and pathophysiological processes.. · Imaging biomarkers from multimodality and multiparametric imaging are integrated using artificial intelligence algorithms.. · Quantitative imaging parameters are a fundamental component of diagnostics for all tumor entities, such as for mammary and prostate carcinomas.. CITATION FORMAT: · Bäuerle T, Dietzel M, Pinker K et al. Identification of impactful imaging biomarker: Clinical applications for breast and prostate carcinoma. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 354 - 362.

Added value of clinical decision rules for the management of enhancing breast MRI lesions: A systematic comparison of the Kaiser score and the Göttingen score.

PURPOSE: We investigated the added value of two internationally used clinical decision rules in the management of enhancing lesions on breast MRI. METHODS: This retrospective, institutional review board approved study included consecutive patients from two different populations. Patients received breast MRI according to the recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Initially, all examinations were assessed by expert readers without using clinical decision rules. All lesions rated as category 4 or 5 according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System were histologically confirmed. These lesions were re-evaluated by an expert reader blinded to the histology. He assigned each lesion a Göttingen score (GS) and a Kaiser score (KS) on different occasions. To provide an estimate on inter-reader agreement, a second fellowship-trained reader assessed a subset of these lesions. Subgroup analyses based on lesion type (mass vs. non-mass), size (>1 cm vs. ≤ 1 cm), menopausal status, and significant background parenchymal enhancement were conducted. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for the GS and KS were compared, and the potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies was determined according to previously established cutoffs (KS > 4, GS > 3) RESULTS: 527 lesions in 506 patients were included (mean age: 51.8 years, inter-quartile-range: 43.0-61.0 years). 131/527 lesions were malignant (24.9 %; 95 %-confidence-interval: 21.3-28.8). In all subgroups, the AUCs of the KS (median = 0.91) were higher than those of the GS (median = 0.83). Except for "premenopausal patients" (p = 0.057), these differences were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.01). Kappa agreement was higher for the KS (0.922) than for the GS (0.358). CONCLUSION: Both the KS and the GS provided added value for the management of enhancing lesions on breast MRI. The KS was superior to the GS in terms of avoiding unnecessary biopsies and showed superior inter-reader agreement; therefore, it may be regarded as the clinical decision rule of choice.

Introduction of a breast apparent diffusion coefficient category system (ADC-B) derived from a large multicenter MRI database.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an intuitive and generally applicable system for the reporting, assessment, and documentation of ADC to complement standard BI-RADS criteria. METHODS: This was a multicentric, retrospective analysis of 11 independently conducted institutional review board-approved studies from seven institutions performed between 2007 and 2019. Breast Apparent Diffusion coefficient (ADC-B) categories comprised ADC-B0 (ADC non-diagnostic), ADC-B1 (no enhancing lesion), and ADC-B2-5. The latter was defined by plotting ADC versus cumulative malignancy rates. Statistics comprised ANOVA with post hoc testing and ROC analysis. p values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 1625 patients (age: 55.9 years (± 13.8)) with 1736 pathologically verified breast lesions were included. The mean ADC (× 10-3 mm2/s) differed significantly between benign (1.45, SD .40) and malignant lesions (.95, SD .39), and between invasive (.92, SD .22) and in situ carcinomas (1.18, SD .30) (p < .001). The following ADC-B categories were identified: ADC-B0-ADC cannot be assessed; ADC-B1-no contrast-enhancing lesion; ADC-B2-ADC ≥ 1.9 (cumulative malignancy rate < 0.1%); ADC-B3-ADC 1.5 to < 1.9 (0.1-1.7%); ADC-B4-ADC 1.0 to < 1.5 (10-24.5%); and ADC-B5-ADC < 1.0 (> 24.5%). At the latter threshold, a positive predictive value of 95.8% (95% CI 0.94-0.97) for invasive versus non-invasive breast carcinomas was reached. CONCLUSIONS: The breast apparent diffusion coefficient system (ADC-B) provides a simple and widely applicable categorization scheme for assessment, documentation, and reporting of apparent diffusion coefficient values in contrast-enhancing breast lesions on MRI. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The ADC-B system, based on diverse MRI examinations, is clinically relevant for stratifying breast cancer risk via apparent diffusion coefficient measurements, and complements BI-RADS for improved clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: • The breast apparent diffusion coefficient category system (ADC-B) is a simple tool for the assessment, documentation, and reporting of ADC values in contrast-enhancing breast lesions on MRI. • The categories comprise ADC-B0 for non-diagnostic examinations, ADC-B1 for examinations without an enhancing lesion, and ADC-B2-5 for enhancing lesions with an increasing malignancy rate. • The breast apparent diffusion coefficient category system may be used to complement BI-RADS in clinical decision-making.

Spiral breast computed tomography with a photon-counting detector (SBCT): The future of breast imaging?

Dedicated breast computed tomography (BCT) is an emerging breast imaging modality. The latest development has been the introduction of a spiral breast computed tomography scanner equipped with a photon-counting detector (SBCT). SBCT promises multiple advantages: Unlike conventional mammography, contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM: both 2D), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT: pseudo 3D), SBCT enables 3D breast imaging without tissue overlap. SBCT achieves high isotropic spatial resolution of breast tissue enabling the assessment of both soft tissue and microcalcifications. Similar to CESM and MRI, SBCT supports contrast-enhanced imaging, enabling the assessment of breast neovascularization. Unlike mammography and its derived methods (CESM, DBT), SBCT does not require compression of the breast. Accordingly, women consistently report significantly increased patient comfort compared to mammography in a previous investigation. Radiation safety is crucial in breast imaging. Studies showed different results in terms of dose, with some staying within the limits of two-view FFDM defined by the ACR and others exceeding the limit by up to 21%. Therefore, a higher radiation dose compared to state-of-the-art mammography and DBT systems has to be acknowledged. SBCT is currently under scientific investigation in multiple trials. Three major indications are currently explored: Whereas our colleagues in Zurich/Switzerland investigate the role of SBCT for opportunistic screening, in our department SBCT is mainly indicated for the work-up of equivocal lesions, and for preoperative staging. In this narrative review, we summarize the concepts of SBCT and potential implications for patient care. We report on our initial clinical experience with the technology and outline future developments of SBCT.

The potential of predictive and prognostic breast MRI (P2-bMRI).

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important part of breast cancer diagnosis and multimodal workup. It provides unsurpassed soft tissue contrast to analyse the underlying pathophysiology, and it is adopted for a variety of clinical indications. Predictive and prognostic breast MRI (P2-bMRI) is an emerging application next to these indications. The general objective of P2-bMRI is to provide predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers in order to support personalisation of breast cancer treatment. We believe P2-bMRI has a great clinical potential, thanks to the in vivo examination of the whole tumour and of the surrounding tissue, establishing a link between pathophysiology and response to therapy (prediction) as well as patient outcome (prognostication). The tools used for P2-bMRI cover a wide spectrum: standard and advanced multiparametric pulse sequences; structured reporting criteria (for instance BI-RADS descriptors); artificial intelligence methods, including machine learning (with emphasis on radiomics data analysis); and deep learning that have shown compelling potential for this purpose. P2-bMRI reuses the imaging data of examinations performed in the current practice. Accordingly, P2-bMRI could optimise clinical workflow, enabling cost savings and ultimately improving personalisation of treatment. This review introduces the concept of P2-bMRI, focusing on the clinical application of P2-bMRI by using semantic criteria.

Breast MRI: does a clinical decision algorithm outweigh reader experience?

OBJECTIVES: Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (MRIb) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The Kaiser score (KS) is a clinical decision algorithm, which formalizes and guides diagnosis in breast MRI and is expected to compensate for lesser reader experience. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of untrained residents using the KS compared to off-site radiologists experienced in breast imaging using only MR BI-RADS. METHODS: Three off-site, board-certified radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, interpreted MRIb according to the MR BI-RADS scale. The same studies were read by three residents in radiology without prior training in breast imaging using the KS. All readers were blinded to clinical information. Histology was used as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was conducted by comparing the AUC of the ROC curves. RESULTS: A total of 80 women (median age 52 years) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant) were included. The individual within-group performance of the three expert readers (AUC 0.723-0.742) as well as the three residents was equal (AUC 0.842-0.928), p > 0.05, respectively. But, the rating of each resident using the KS significantly outperformed the experts' ratings using the MR BI-RADS scale (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: The KS helped residents to achieve better results in reaching correct diagnoses than experienced radiologists empirically assigning MR BI-RADS categories in a clinical "problem solving MRI" setting. These results support that reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience. KEY POINTS: • Reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience in a clinical "problem solving MRI" setting. • The Kaiser score, which provides a clinical decision algorithm for structured reporting, helps residents to reach an expert level in breast MRI reporting and to even outperform experienced radiologists using MR BI-RADS without further formal guidance.

Evidence-Based and Structured Diagnosis in Breast MRI using the Kaiser Score. / Evidenzbasierte und strukturierte Diagnostik in der MR-Mammografie anhand des Kaiser-Score.

BACKGROUND: Breast MRI is the most sensitive method for the detection of breast cancer and is an integral part of modern breast imaging. On the other hand, interpretation of breast MRI exams is considered challenging due to the complexity of the available information. Clinical decision rules that combine diagnostic criteria in an algorithm can help the radiologist to read breast MRI by supporting objective and largely experience-independent diagnosis. METHOD: Narrative review. In this article, the Kaiser Score (KS) as a clinical decision rule for breast MRI is introduced, its diagnostic criteria are defined, and strategies for clinical decision making using the KS are explained and discussed. RESULTS: The KS is based on machine learning and has been independently validated by international research. It is largely independent of the examination technique that is used. It allows objective differentiation between benign and malignant contrast-enhancing breast MRI findings using diagnostic BI-RADS criteria taken from T2w and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1w images. A flowchart guides the reader in up to three steps to determine a score corresponding to the probability of malignancy that can be used to assign a BI-RADS category. Individual decision making takes the clinical context into account and is illustrated by typical scenarios. KEY POINTS: · The KS as an evidence-based decision rule to objectively distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions is based on information contained in T2w und dynamic contrast-enhanced T1w sequences and is largely independent of specific examination protocols.. · The KS diagnostic criteria are in line with the MRI BI-RADS lexicon. We focused on defining a default category to be applied in the case of equivocal imaging criteria.. · The KS reflects increasing probabilities of malignancy and, together with the clinical context, assists individual decision making.. CITATION FORMAT: · Baltzer PA, Krug KB, Dietzel M. Evidence-Based and Structured Diagnosis in Breast MRI using the Kaiser Score. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; 194: 1216 - 1228.

Economic potential of abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) was introduced to reduce both examination and image reading times and to improve cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. The aim of this model-based economic study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of full protocol breast MRI (FB-MRI) vs. AB-MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis and a Markov model were designed to model the cumulative costs and effects of biennial screening in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a US healthcare system perspective. Model input parameters for a cohort of women with dense breast tissue were adopted from recent literature. The impact of varying AB-MRI costs per examination as well as specificity on the resulting cost-effectiveness was modeled within deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At an assumed cost per examination of $ 263 for AB-MRI (84% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination), the discounted cumulative costs of both MR-based strategies accounted comparably. Reducing the costs of AB-MRI below $ 259 (82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination, respectively), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FB-MRI exceeded the willingness to pay threshold and the AB-MRI-strategy should be considered preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that AB-MRI may be considered cost-effective compared to FB-MRI for screening women with dense breast tissue for breast cancer, as long as the costs per examination do not exceed 82% of the cost of a FB-MRI examination. KEY POINTS: • Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI is affected by reductions in specificity and resulting false positive findings and increased recall rates. • Abbreviated breast MRI may be cost-effective up to a cost per examination of 82% of the cost of a full protocol examination. • Abbreviated breast MRI could be an economically preferable alternative to full protocol breast MRI in screening women with dense breast tissue.

Potential of spiral breast computed tomography to increase patient comfort compared to DM.

PURPOSE: To intra-individually compare patient comfort of spiral breast computed tomography (SBCT) versus digital mammography (DM). METHOD: This prospective IRB approved study included 79 patients undergoing both SBCT and DM for the assessment of BI-RADS 4 - 6 lesions. Following SBCT and DM patients answered a standardized questionnaire regarding "Overall patient comfort" and "Pain" on a 5-point Likert Scale. On the same Likert Scale, experienced radiologic technicians rated the workflow of the SBCT regarding patients' "Mobility", ease of patient "Positioning", patients' adherence to the examination ("Compliance") and expected image quality. Visibility of fibroglandular tissue in SBCT was independently rated by two breast radiologists on a 10-point Likert Scale. Subgroups stratified by menopausal status and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients reported significantly lower pain during SBCT (4.73 ± 0.57) compared to DM (4.09 ± 0.90; P < 0.01). This effect was independent from BMI. However, pain reduction by SBCT was most pronounced in premenopausal (SBCT vs. DM: 4.79 ± 0.50 vs. 3.89 ± 0.99) compared to postmenopausal patients (4.71 ± 0.77 vs. 4.20 ± 0.89). Overall patient comfort in premenopausal patients tended to be higher in SBCT compared to DM (P = 0.08). Radiologic technicians rated the SBCT procedure generally as positive (average: 4.62 ± 0.56). Coverage of fibroglandular tissue in SBCT was generally high (9.82 ± 0.43) and interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experience less pain during spiral breast computed tomography compared to DM, especially in premenopausal women. Imaging is feasible at a high level of anatomical breast coverage and without problems with the clinical workflow.

Cost-Effectiveness of MR-Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Extremely Dense Breasts After Two Rounds of Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography (MRM) vs. x-ray based mammography (XM) in two-yearly screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer in the light of recent literature. METHODS: Decision analysis and Markov modelling were used to compare cumulative costs (in US-$) and outcomes (in QALYs) of MRM vs. XM over the model runtime of 20 years. The perspective of the U.S. healthcare system was selected. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated and related to a willingness to pay-threshold of $ 100,000 per QALY in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of variations of the input parameters. In particular, variations of the rate of false positive findings beyond the first screening round and their impact on cost-effectiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Breast cancer screening with MRM resulted in increased costs and superior effectiveness. Cumulative average costs of $ 6,081 per woman and cumulative effects of 15.12 QALYs were determined for MRM, whereas screening with XM resulted in costs of $ 5,810 and 15.10 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $ 13,493 per QALY gained. When the specificity of MRM in the second and subsequent screening rounds was varied from 92% to 99%, the ICER resulted in a range from $ 38,849 to $ 5,062 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Based on most recent data on the diagnostic performance beyond the first screening round, MRM may remain the economically preferable alternative in screening women of intermediate risk for breast cancer due to their dense breast tissue.

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening Women with Intermediate Risk of Breast Cancer-How Low-Cost Must MRI Be?

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) offer superior diagnostic performance compared to conventional mammography in screening women with intermediate risk of breast cancer due to dense breast tissue. The aim of this model-based economic evaluation was to analyze whether AB-MRI is cost-effective in this cohort compared to DBT. METHODS: Decision analysis and Markov simulations were used to model the cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a time horizon of 30 years. Model input parameters were adopted from recent literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to test the stability of the model. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, the costs of an AB-MRI examination were defined to equal the costs of a full protocol acquisition. Two-yearly screening of women with dense breasts resulted in cumulative discounted costs of $8798 and $9505 for DBT and AB-MRI, and cumulative discounted effects of 19.23 and 19.27 QALYs, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $20,807 per QALY gained in the base-case scenario. By reducing the cost of an AB-MRI examination below a threshold of $241 in sensitivity analyses, AB-MRI would become cost-saving compared to DBT. CONCLUSION: In comparison to DBT, AB-MRI can be considered cost-effective up to a price per examination of $593 in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer.

An A.I. classifier derived from 4D radiomics of dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI data: potential to avoid unnecessary breast biopsies.

OBJECTIVES: Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (bMRI) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The high number of detected lesions poses a significant logistic challenge in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate a temporally and spatially resolved (4D) radiomics approach to distinguish benign from malignant enhancing breast lesions and thereby avoid unnecessary biopsies. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with MRI-suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4/5). Two blinded readers analyzed DCE images using a commercially available software, automatically extracting BI-RADS curve types and pharmacokinetic enhancement features. After principal component analysis (PCA), a neural network-derived A.I. classifier to discriminate benign from malignant lesions was constructed and tested using a random split simple approach. The rate of avoidable biopsies was evaluated at exploratory cutoffs (C1, 100%, and C2, ≥ 95% sensitivity). RESULTS: Four hundred seventy (295 malignant) lesions in 329 female patients (mean age 55.1 years, range 18-85 years) were examined. Eighty-six DCE features were extracted based on automated volumetric lesion analysis. Five independent component features were extracted using PCA. The A.I. classifier achieved a significant (p < .001) accuracy to distinguish benign from malignant lesion within the test sample (AUC: 83.5%; 95% CI: 76.8-89.0%). Applying identified cutoffs on testing data not included in training dataset showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign lesions by 14.5% (C1) and 36.2% (C2). CONCLUSION: The investigated automated 4D radiomics approach resulted in an accurate A.I. classifier able to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Its application could have avoided unnecessary biopsies. KEY POINTS: • Principal component analysis of the extracted volumetric and temporally resolved (4D) DCE markers favored pharmacokinetic modeling derived features. • An A.I. classifier based on 86 extracted DCE features achieved a good to excellent diagnostic performance as measured by the area under the ROC curve with 80.6% (training dataset) and 83.5% (testing dataset). • Testing the resulting A.I. classifier showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions by up to 36.2%, p < .001 at the cost of up to 4.5% (n = 4) false negative low-risk cancers.

Images Are Data: A Breast Imaging Perspective on a Contemporary Paradigm.

BACKGROUND: Considering radiological examinations not as mere images, but as a source of data, has become the key paradigm in the diagnostic imaging field. This change of perspective is particularly popular in breast imaging. It allows breast radiologists to apply algorithms derived from computer science, to realize innovative clinical applications, and to refine already established methods. In this context, the terminology "imaging biomarker", "radiomics", and "artificial intelligence" are of pivotal importance. These methods promise noninvasive, low-cost (e. g., in comparison to multigene arrays), and workflow-friendly (automated, only one examination, instantaneous results, etc.) delivery of clinically relevant information. METHODS AND RESULTS: This paper is designed as a narrative review on the previously mentioned paradigm. The focus is on key concepts in breast imaging and important buzzwords are explained. For all areas of breast imaging, exemplary studies and potential clinical use cases are discussed. CONCLUSION: Considering radiological examination as a source of data may optimize patient management by guiding individualized breast cancer diagnosis and oncologic treatment in the age of precision medicine. KEY POINTS: · In conventional breast imaging, examinations are interpreted based on patterns perceivable by visual inspection.. · The radiomics paradigm treats breast images as a source of data, containing information beyond what is visible to our eyes.. · This results in radiomic signatures that may be considered as imaging biomarkers, as they provide diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic information.. · Radiomics derived imaging biomarkers may be used to individualize breast cancer treatment in the era of precision medicine.. · The concept and key research of radiomics in the field of breast imaging will be discussed in this narrative review.. CITATION FORMAT: · Dietzel M, Clauser P, Kapetas P et al. Images Are Data: A Breast Imaging Perspective on a Contemporary Paradigm. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 898 - 908.

Impact of specificity on cost-effectiveness of screening women at high risk of breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound.

PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to analyze the comparative cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs conventional imaging in a screening setting for women with high risk of breast cancer, with particular focus on the impact of specificity of MRM. METHOD: Decision analytic modelling and Markov Modelling were applied to evaluate cumulative costs of each screening modality and their subsequent treatments as well as cumulative outcomes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). For the selected time horizon of 30 years, false positive and false negative results were included. Model input parameters for women with high risk of breast cancer were estimated based on published data from a US healthcare system perspective. Major influence factors were identified and evaluated in a deterministic sensitivity analysis. Based on current recommendations for economic evaluations, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the model stability. RESULTS: In a base-case analysis, screening with XM vs. MRM and treatment resulted in overall costs of $36,201.57 vs. $39,050.97 and a cumulative effectiveness of 19.53 QALYs vs. 19.59 QALYs. This led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $ 45,373.94 per QALY for MRM. US and XM + US resulted in ICER values higher than the willingness to pay (WTP). In the sensitivity analyses, MRM remained a cost-effective strategy for screening high-risk patients as long as the specificity of MRM did not drop below 86.7 %. CONCLUSION: In high-risk breast cancer patients, MRM can be regarded as a cost-effective alternative to XM in a yearly screening setting. Specificity may be an important cost driver in settings with yearly screening intervals.

Diffusion-weighted Imaging Allows for Downgrading MR BI-RADS 4 Lesions in Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsy.

PURPOSE: Diffusion-weighted imaging with the calculation of an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) has been proposed as a quantitative biomarker on contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) of the breast. There is a need to approve a generalizable ADC cutoff. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a predefined ADC cutoff allows downgrading of BI-RADS 4 lesions on CE-MRI, avoiding unnecessary biopsies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a retrospective, multicentric, cross-sectional study. Data from five centers were pooled on the individual lesion level. Eligible patients had a BI-RADS 4 rating on CE-MRI. For each center, two breast radiologists evaluated the images. Data on lesion morphology (mass, non-mass), size, and ADC were collected. Histology was the standard of reference. A previously suggested ADC cutoff (≥1.5 × 10-3 mm2/second) was applied. A negative likelihood ratio of 0.1 or lower was considered as a rule-out criterion for breast cancer. Diagnostic performance indices were calculated by ROC analysis. RESULTS: There were 657 female patients (mean age, 42; SD, 14.1) with 696 BI-RADS 4 lesions included. Disease prevalence was 59.5% (414/696). The area under the ROC curve was 0.784. Applying the investigated ADC cutoff, sensitivity was 96.6% (400/414). The potential reduction of unnecessary biopsies was 32.6% (92/282). CONCLUSIONS: An ADC cutoff of ≥1.5 × 10-3 mm2/second allows downgrading of lesions classified as BI-RADS 4 on breast CE-MRI. One-third of unnecessary biopsies could thus be avoided.

Cost-effectiveness of MR-mammography vs. conventional mammography in screening patients at intermediate risk of breast cancer - A model-based economic evaluation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of screening patients of intermediate risk of breast cancer with MR-Mammography (MRM) versus conventional mammography (XM). METHOD: A decision model for both diagnostic modalities and a subsequent markov model for the simulation of follow-up costs and outcomes was developed. Input parameters were acquired from published literature for this markov modelling study. The expected cumulative costs and outcomes were calculated for both modalities in a 30-year timeframe in US-dollar ($) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis incorporating 30,000 Monte Carlo iterations were performed to investigate the model stability. RESULTS: In total, XM with its consecutive treatments resulted in total costs of $ 5,492.68 and an average cumulative quality of life of 18.87 QALYs, compared to MRM with costs of $ 5,878.66 and 18.92 QALYs. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MRM was $ 8,797.60 per QALY - distinctly below international willingness-to-pay thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The results were confirmed within the limits of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate risk for breast cancer due to their dense breast tissue, two-yearly screening with MRM may be considered as cost-effective.

A Multicentric Comparison of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Mapping and the Kaiser Score in the Assessment of Breast Lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicentric study, individual patient data from 3 different centers were analyzed. Consecutive patients receiving standardized multiparametric breast magnetic resonance imaging for standard nonscreening indications were included. At each center, 2 experienced radiologists with more than 5 years of experience retrospectively interpreted the examinations in consensus and applied the KS to every histologically verified lesion. The corresponding mean ADC of each lesion was measured using a Wielema type 4 region of interest. According to established methods, the KS and ADC were combined, yielding the KS+ score. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and compared between the KS, ADC, and KS+ (DeLong test). Likewise, the potential to help avoid unnecessary biopsies was compared between the KS, ADC, and KS+ based on established high sensitivity thresholds (McNemar test). RESULTS: A total of 450 lesions in 414 patients (mean age, 51.5 years; interquartile range, 42-60.8 years) were included, with 219 lesions being malignant (48.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-53.4%). The performance of the KS (AUROC, 0.915; CI, 0.886-0.939) was significantly better than that of the ADC (AUROC, 0.848; CI, 0.811-0.880; P < 0.001). The largest difference between these parameters was observed when assessing subcentimeter lesions (AUROC, 0.909 for KS; CI, 0.849-0.950 vs 0.811 for ADC; CI, 0.737-0.871; P = 0.02).The use of the KS+ (AUROC, 0.918; CI, 0.889-0.942) improved the performance slightly, but without any significant difference relative to a single KS or ADC reading (P = 0.64).When applying high sensitivity thresholds for avoiding unnecessary biopsies, the KS and ADC achieved equal sensitivity (97.7% for both; cutoff values, >4 for KS and ≤1.4 × 10-3 mm2/s for ADC). However, the rate of potentially avoidable biopsies was higher when using the KS (specificity: 65.4% for KS vs 32.9% for ADC; P < 0.0001). The KS was superior to the KS+ in avoiding unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Both the KS and ADC may be used to distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions. However, KS proved superior in this task including, most of all, when assessing small lesions less than 1 cm. Using the KS may avoid twice as many unnecessary biopsies, and the combination of both the KS and ADS does not improve diagnostic performance.