Body mass index, breast density, and the risk of breast cancer development in relation to the menopausal status; results from a population-based screening program in a native African-Arab country.

Background: Risk factors are traits or behaviors that have an influence on the development of breast cancer (BC). Awareness of the prevalent risk factors can guide in developing prevention interventions. Purpose: To evaluate the correlation between the breast density, body mass index, and the risk of breast cancer development in relation to the menopausal status in a native African-Arab population. Material and methods: The study included 30,443 screened females who were classified into cancer and non-cancer groups and each group was further sub-classified into pre- and postmenopausal groups. The breast density (BD) was reported and subjectively classified according to the 2013 ACR BI-RADS breast density classification. The weight and height were measured, and the body mass index (BMI) was calculated and classified according to the WHO BMI classification. Results: A statistically significant difference was calculated between the mean BMI in the cancer and non-cancer groups (p: .027) as well as between the pre- and postmenopausal groups (p < .001). A positive statistically insignificant correlation was calculated between the breast density and the risk of breast cancer in the premenopausal group (OR: 1.062, p: .919) and a negative highly significant correlation was calculated in the postmenopausal group (OR: 0.234, p < .001). Conclusion: BMI and BD are inversely associated with each other. The current studied population presented unique ethnic characteristics, where a decreased BD and an increased BMI were found to be independent risk factors for developing breast cancer.

The first BGICC consensus and recommendations for breast cancer awareness, early detection and risk reduction in low- and middle-income countries and the MENA region.

In low-middle income countries (LMICs) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, there is an unmet need to establish and improve breast cancer (BC) awareness, early diagnosis and risk reduction programs. During the 12th Breast, Gynecological & Immuno-oncology International Cancer Conference - Egypt 2020, 26 experts from 7 countries worldwide voted to establish the first consensus for BC awareness, early detection and risk reduction in LMICs/MENA region. The panel advised that there is an extreme necessity for a well-developed BC data registries and prospective clinical studies that address alternative modalities/modified BC screening programs in areas of limited resources. The most important recommendations of the panel were: (a) BC awareness campaigns should be promoted to public and all adult age groups; (b) early detection programs should combine geographically distributed mammographic facilities with clinical breast examination (CBE); (c) breast awareness should be encouraged; and (d) intensive surveillance and chemoprevention strategies should be fostered for high-risk women. The panel defined some areas for future clinical research, which included the role of CBE and breast self-examination as an alternative to radiological screening in areas of limited resources, the interval and methodology of BC surveillance in women with increased risk of BC and the use of low dose tamoxifen in BC risk reduction. In LMICs/MENA region, BC awareness and early detection campaigns should take into consideration the specific disease criteria and the socioeconomic status of the target population. The statements with no consensus reached should serve as potential catalyst for future clinical research.

Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

OBJECTIVE:: To assess the feasibility of using the MRI breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon morphology descriptors to characterize enhancing breast lesions identified on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). METHODS:: The study is a retrospective analysis of the morphology descriptors of 261 enhancing breast lesions identified on CESM in 239 patients. We presented the morphological categorization of the included lesions into focus, mass and non-mass. Further classifications included (1) the multiplicity for "focus" category, (2) the shape, margin and internal enhancement for "mass" category and (3) the distribution and internal enhancement for "non-mass" category. Each morphology descriptor was evaluated individually (irrespective of all other descriptors) by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS:: The study included 68/261 (26.1%) benign lesions and 193/261 (73.9%) malignant lesions. Intensely enhancing foci, whether single (7/12, 58.3%) or multiple (2/12, 16.7%), were malignant. Descriptors of "irregular"-shape (PPV: 92.4%) and "non-circumscribed" margin (odds ratio: 55.2, LR positive: 4.77; p-value: <0.001) were more compatible with malignancy. Internal mass enhancement patterns showed a very low specificity (58.0%) and NPV (40.0%). Non-mass enhancement (NME) was detected in 81/261 lesions. Asymmetrical NME in 81% (n = 52/81) lesions was malignant lesions and internal enhancement patterns indicative of malignancy were the heterogeneous and clumped ones. CONCLUSION:: We can apply the MRI morphology descriptors to characterize lesions on CESM, but with few expectations. In many situations, irregular-shaped, non-circumscribed masses and NME with focal, ductal or segmental distribution and heterogeneous or clumped enhancement are the most suggestive descriptors of malignant pathologies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: (1) The MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors can be applied in the characterization of enhancing lesions on CESM with a few exceptions. (2) Multiple bilateral intensely enhancing foci should not be included under the normal background parenchymal enhancement unless they are proved to be benign by biopsy. (3) Mass lesion features that indicated malignancy were irregular-shaped, spiculated and irregular margins and heterogeneous internal enhancement patterns. The rim enhancement pattern should not be considered as a descriptor of malignant lesions unless CESM is coupled with an ultrasound examination.

Missed breast carcinoma; why and how to avoid?

Introduction : Despite the advances in mammography techniques, it still has a number of limitations. It is estimated that about 10 to 25% of lesions are overlooked in mammograms out of which about two thirds are detected retrospectively by radiologists and oncologists. Causes of missed breast cancer on mammography can be secondary to many factors including those related to the patient (whether inherent or acquired), the nature of the malignant mass itself, poor mammographic techniques, provider factors or interpretive skills of radiologists and oncologists (including perception and interpretation errors). Aim of Work : The aim of this study is to investigate the aforementioned factors hindering early breast cancer detection and in turn lowering mammographic sensitivity and to outline the major guidelines to overcome these factors aiming to an optimum mammographic examination and interpretation by radiologists and oncologists. Subject and Methods : We conducted this multicenter study over a two-year interval. We included 152 histopathologicaly proven breast carcinomas that were initially missed on mammography. The cases were subjected to mammography, complementary US, MRI and digital mammography in some cases and all cases were histopathologically proven either by FNAB, CNB or open biopsy. Results : Revision of the pathological specimens of these 152 cases revealed 121 infiltrating ductal carcinomas, 2 lobular, 4 mucinous, 14 inflammatory carcinomas, 6 carcinomas in situ (3 of which were intracystic), 2 intraductal papillary carcinomas and 3 cases with Paget's disease of the nipple. In analyzing the causes responsible for misdiagnosis of these carcinomas we classified them into 4 causative factors; patient, tumor, technical or provider factors. Tumor factors were the most commonly encountered, accounting for 44.1%, while provider factors were the least commonly encountered in 14.5 %. Carcinomas were detected using several individual or combined complementary techniques. These techniques mainly included double reading, additional mammography views, ultrasound and MRI examinations. Forty four carcinomas were detected on double and re-reading by more experienced radiologists. Additional mammographic views were recommended in 35 (23%) cases. Complementary ultrasound examination was performed for all 152 cases (100%) and showed a higher sensitivity than mammography in carcinoma detection. It was diagnostic in 138 (90.8%) cases only. In the remaining 14 cases, further MRI and biopsy were performed. Conclusion : Why can breast carcinoma be missed? Four main factors are responsible for missing a carcinoma: (1) Patient factors (Inherently dense breasts or acquired dense breasts). (2) Tumor factors (subtle carcinoma, masked carcinoma, multifocal carcinoma and multicentric carcinoma). (3) Technical factors (bad exposure factors, malpositioned breasts and bad processing quality). (4) Provider factors (bad perception and misinterpretation). How to avoid missing a breast carcinoma? Review clinical data and use US and other adjunct techniques as MRI and biopsy to assess a palpable or mammographically detected mass. Be strict about positioning and technical factors. Try to optimize image quality. Be alert to subtle features of breast cancers. Always consider the well defined carcinoma. Compare current images with multiple prior studies to look for subtle increases in lesion size. Look for other lesions when one abnormality is seen. Judge a lesion by its most malignant features. Double reading and the use of computer aided diagnosis (CAD) and finally FFDM (Full Field Digital Mammography). Close cooperation between the oncologist, radiologist and pathologist is essential to avoid missing any case of breast carcinoma. Key Words : Missed breast carcinoma -Mammography - Ultrasonography -MRI.