Value of automated breast ultrasound in screening: Standalone and as a supplemental to digital breast tomosynthesis.

We aimed to determine the value of standalone and supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in detecting cancers in an opportunistic screening setting with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and compare this combined screening method to DBT and ABUS alone in women older than 39 years with BI-RADS B-D density categories. In this prospective opportunistic screening study, 3466 women aged 39 or older with BI-RADS B-D density categories and with a mean age of 50 were included. The screening protocol consisted of DBT mediolateral-oblique views, 2D craniocaudal views, and ABUS with three projections for both breasts. ABUS was evaluated blinded to mammography findings. Statistical analysis evaluated diagnostic performance for DBT, ABUS, and combined workflows. Twenty-nine cancers were screen-detected. ABUS and DBT exhibited the same cancer detection rates (CDR) at 7.5/1000 whereas DBT + ABUS showed 8.4/1000, with ABUS contributing an additional CDR of 0.9/1000. Standalone ABUS outperformed DBT in detecting 12.5% more invasive cancers. DBT displayed better accuracy (95%) compared to ABUS (88%) and combined approach (86%). Sensitivities for DBT and ABUS were the same (84%), with DBT + ABUS showing a higher rate (94%). DBT outperformed ABUS in specificity (95% vs. 88%). DBT + ABUS exhibited a higher recall rate (14.89%) compared to ABUS (12.38%) and DBT (6.03%) (p < .001). Standalone ABUS detected more invasive cancers compared to DBT, with a higher recall rate. The combined approach showed a higher CDR by detecting one additional cancer per thousand.

Revolutionizing breast cancer Ki-67 diagnosis: ultrasound radiomics and fully connected neural networks (FCNN) combination method.

PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the diagnostic value of ultrasound habitat sub-region radiomics feature parameters using a fully connected neural networks (FCNN) combination method L2,1-norm in relation to breast cancer Ki-67 status. METHODS: Ultrasound images from 528 cases of female breast cancer at the Affiliated Hospital of Xiangnan University and 232 cases of female breast cancer at the Affiliated Rehabilitation Hospital of Xiangnan University were selected for this study. We utilized deep learning methods to automatically outline the gross tumor volume and perform habitat clustering. Subsequently, habitat sub-regions were extracted to identify radiomics features and underwent feature engineering using the L1,2-norm. A prediction model for the Ki-67 status of breast cancer patients was then developed using a FCNN. The model's performance was evaluated using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), specificity (Spe), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Recall, and F1. In addition, calibration curves and clinical decision curves were plotted for the test set to visually assess the predictive accuracy and clinical benefit of the models. RESULT: Based on the feature engineering using the L1,2-norm, a total of 9 core features were identified. The predictive model, constructed by the FCNN model based on these 9 features, achieved the following scores: ACC 0.856, AUC 0.915, Spe 0.843, PPV 0.920, NPV 0.747, Recall 0.974, and F1 0.890. Furthermore, calibration curves and clinical decision curves of the validation set demonstrated a high level of confidence in the model's performance and its clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Habitat clustering of ultrasound images of breast cancer is effectively supported by the combined implementation of the L1,2-norm and FCNN algorithms, allowing for the accurate classification of the Ki-67 status in breast cancer patients.

Combining Radiomics and Autoencoders to Distinguish Benign and Malignant Breast Tumors on US Images.

Background US is clinically established for breast imaging, but its diagnostic performance depends on operator experience. Computer-assisted (real-time) image analysis may help in overcoming this limitation. Purpose To develop precise real-time-capable US-based breast tumor categorization by combining classic radiomics and autoencoder-based features from automatically localized lesions. Materials and Methods A total of 1619 B-mode US images of breast tumors were retrospectively analyzed between April 2018 and January 2024. nnU-Net was trained for lesion segmentation. Features were extracted from tumor segments, bounding boxes, and whole images using either classic radiomics, autoencoder, or both. Feature selection was performed to generate radiomics signatures, which were used to train machine learning algorithms for tumor categorization. Models were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity and were statistically compared with histopathologically or follow-up-confirmed diagnosis. Results The model was developed on 1191 (mean age, 61 years ± 14 [SD]) female patients and externally validated on 50 (mean age, 55 years ± 15]). The development data set was divided into two parts: testing and training lesion segmentation (419 and 179 examinations) and lesion categorization (503 and 90 examinations). nnU-Net demonstrated precision and reproducibility in lesion segmentation in test set of data set 1 (median Dice score [DS]: 0.90 [IQR, 0.84-0.93]; P = .01) and data set 2 (median DS: 0.89 [IQR, 0.80-0.92]; P = .001). The best model, trained with 23 mixed features from tumor bounding boxes, achieved an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), sensitivity of 81% (46 of 57; 95% CI: 70, 91), and specificity of 87% (39 of 45; 95% CI: 77, 87). No evidence of difference was found between model and human readers (AUC = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.97] vs 0.83 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.90]; P = .55 and 0.90 vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.90]; P = .45) in tumor classification or between model and histopathologically or follow-up-confirmed diagnosis (AUC = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.97] vs 1.00 [95% CI: 1.00,1.00]; P = .10). Conclusion Precise real-time US-based breast tumor categorization was developed by mixing classic radiomics and autoencoder-based features from tumor bounding boxes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04976257 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Comparison of Mammography and Mammography with Supplemental Whole-Breast US Tomography for Cancer Detection in Patients with Dense Breasts.

BACKGROUND: Women with dense breasts benefit from supplemental cancer screening with US, but US has low specificity. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of breast US tomography (UST) combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multireader multicase study included women with dense breasts who underwent FFDM and UST at 10 centers between August 2017 and October 2019 as part of a prospective case collection registry. All patients in the registry with cancer were included; patients with benign biopsy or negative follow-up imaging findings were randomly selected for inclusion. Thirty-two Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists independently evaluated FFDM followed immediately by FFDM plus UST for suspicious findings and assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category. The superiority of FFDM plus UST versus FFDM alone for cancer detection (assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), BI-RADS 4 sensitivity, and BI-RADS 3 sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using the two-sided significance level of α = .05. Noninferiority of BI-RADS 4 specificity was evaluated at the one-sided significance level of α = .025 with a -10% margin. RESULTS: Among 140 women (mean age, 56 years ±10 [SD]; 36 with cancer, 104 without), FFDM plus UST achieved superior performance compared with FFDM alone (AUC, 0.60 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.69] vs 0.54 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.64]; P = .03). For FFDM plus UST versus FFDM alone, BI-RADS 4 mean sensitivity was superior (37% [428 of 1152] vs 30% [343 of 1152]; P = .03) and BI-RADS 4 mean specificity was noninferior (82% [2741 of 3328] vs 88% [2916 of 3328]; P = .004). For FFDM plus UST versus FFDM, no difference in BI-RADS 3 mean sensitivity was observed (40% [461 of 1152] vs 33% [385 of 1152]; P = .08), but BI-RADS 3 mean specificity was superior (75% [2491 of 3328] vs 69% [2299 of 3328]; P = .04). CONCLUSION: In women with dense breasts, FFDM plus UST improved cancer detection by radiologists versus FFDM alone. Clinical trial registration nos. NCT03257839 and NCT04260620 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann in this issue.

Screening Outcomes of Mammography with AI in Dense Breasts: A Comparative Study with Supplemental Screening US.

Background Comparative performance between artificial intelligence (AI) and breast US for women with dense breasts undergoing screening mammography remains unclear. Purpose To compare the performance of mammography alone, mammography with AI, and mammography plus supplemental US for screening women with dense breasts, and to investigate the characteristics of the detected cancers. Materials and Methods A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women (≥40 years of age) with dense breasts who underwent mammography plus supplemental whole-breast handheld US from January 2017 to December 2018 at a primary health care center. Sequential reading for mammography alone and mammography with the aid of an AI system was conducted by five breast radiologists, and their recall decisions were recorded. Results of the combined mammography and US examinations were collected from the database. A dedicated breast radiologist reviewed marks for mammography alone or with AI to confirm lesion identification. The reference standard was histologic examination and 1-year follow-up data. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, sensitivity, specificity, and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) of mammography alone, mammography with AI, and mammography plus US were compared. Results Among 5707 asymptomatic women (mean age, 52.4 years ± 7.9 [SD]), 33 (0.6%) had cancer (median lesion size, 0.7 cm). Mammography with AI had a higher specificity (95.3% [95% CI: 94.7, 95.8], P = .003) and lower AIR (5.0% [95% CI: 4.5, 5.6], P = .004) than mammography alone (94.3% [95% CI: 93.6, 94.8] and 6.0% [95% CI: 5.4, 6.7], respectively). Mammography plus US had a higher CDR (5.6 vs 3.5 per 1000 examinations, P = .002) and sensitivity (97.0% vs 60.6%, P = .002) but lower specificity (77.6% vs 95.3%, P < .001) and higher AIR (22.9% vs 5.0%, P < .001) than mammography with AI. Supplemental US alone helped detect 12 cancers, mostly stage 0 and I (92%, 11 of 12). Conclusion Although AI improved the specificity of mammography interpretation, mammography plus supplemental US helped detect more node-negative early breast cancers that were undetected using mammography with AI. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Whitman and Destounis in this issue.

Assessment of Nonmass Lesions Detected with Screening Breast US Based on Mammographic Findings.

Background Breast nonmass lesions (NMLs) are observed at screening and diagnostic US. However, knowledge is limited on imaging features of NMLs at screening US. Purpose To identify features of NMLs at screening US that are suspicious for malignancy based on mammographic findings. Materials and Methods This retrospective, multicenter study included asymptomatic women who underwent screening US between January 2012 and December 2019. Eligible women had NMLs at US, concurrent screening mammography, and record of a final diagnosis. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with malignancy. The diagnostic performance of each sonographic feature according to mammographic findings was calculated. A reader study was performed to assess interreader agreement for sonographic features. Results Among 993 NMLs in 993 patients (mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]), 914 (92.0%) were benign and 79 (8.0%) were malignant. Mean size was larger for malignant NMLs than for benign NMLs (2.6 cm ± 1.1 vs 1.9 cm ± 0.8; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, associated calcifications (odds ratio [OR], 21.6 [95% CI: 8.0, 58.2]; P < .001), posterior shadowing (OR, 6.9 [95% CI: 2.6, 18.4]; P < .001), segmental distribution (OR, 6.2 [95% CI: 2.7, 14.4]; P < .001), mixed echogenicity (OR, 5.0 [95% CI: 1.8, 14.0]; P < .001), and size (OR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.1]; P = .01) at US were associated with malignancy. Associated calcifications, posterior shadowing, segmental distribution, and mixed echogenicity showed positive predictive values (PPVs) of 44%, 22%, 22.9%, and 16.6%, respectively. Having a negative mammogram was associated with a lower malignancy rate (2.8% vs 28.8%) and lower PPVs for sonographic features (0.7%-10.4% vs 24%-55%) than having a positive mammogram. Interreader agreement for sonographic features was good to excellent (Fleiss κ 95% CI lower bound range, 0.63-0.81). Conclusion Calcifications, posterior shadowing, segmental distribution, and mixed echogenicity associated with NMLs can be considered suspicious features for malignancy at screening US. As malignancy rates and PPVs differ according to mammographic abnormalities, combined assessment is mandatory. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grimm in this issue.

BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.

Background The performance of publicly available large language models (LLMs) remains unclear for complex clinical tasks. Purpose To evaluate the agreement between human readers and LLMs for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories assigned based on breast imaging reports written in three languages and to assess the impact of discordant category assignments on clinical management. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included reports for women who underwent MRI, mammography, and/or US for breast cancer screening or diagnostic purposes at three referral centers. Reports with findings categorized as BI-RADS 1-5 and written in Italian, English, or Dutch were collected between January 2000 and October 2023. Board-certified breast radiologists and the LLMs GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (OpenAI) and Bard, now called Gemini (Google), assigned BI-RADS categories using only the findings described by the original radiologists. Agreement between human readers and LLMs for BI-RADS categories was assessed using the Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1 value). Frequencies were calculated for changes in BI-RADS category assignments that would affect clinical management (ie, BI-RADS 0 vs BI-RADS 1 or 2 vs BI-RADS 3 vs BI-RADS 4 or 5) and compared using the McNemar test. Results Across 2400 reports, agreement between the original and reviewing radiologists was almost perfect (AC1 = 0.91), while agreement between the original radiologists and GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and Bard was moderate (AC1 = 0.52, 0.48, and 0.42, respectively). Across human readers and LLMs, differences were observed in the frequency of BI-RADS category upgrades or downgrades that would result in changed clinical management (118 of 2400 [4.9%] for human readers, 611 of 2400 [25.5%] for Bard, 573 of 2400 [23.9%] for GPT-3.5, and 435 of 2400 [18.1%] for GPT-4; P < .001) and that would negatively impact clinical management (37 of 2400 [1.5%] for human readers, 435 of 2400 [18.1%] for Bard, 344 of 2400 [14.3%] for GPT-3.5, and 255 of 2400 [10.6%] for GPT-4; P < .001). Conclusion LLMs achieved moderate agreement with human reader-assigned BI-RADS categories across reports written in three languages but also yielded a high percentage of discordant BI-RADS categories that would negatively impact clinical management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Performance of Supplemental US Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Varying Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is unclear whether breast US screening outcomes for women with dense breasts vary with levels of breast cancer risk. Purpose To evaluate US screening outcomes for female patients with dense breasts and different estimated breast cancer risk levels. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study used data from US screening examinations in female patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts conducted from January 2014 to October 2020 at 24 radiology facilities within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The primary outcomes were the cancer detection rate, false-positive biopsy recommendation rate, and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3). Risk classification of participants was performed using established BCSC risk prediction models of estimated 6-year advanced breast cancer risk and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Differences in high- versus low- or average-risk categories were assessed using a generalized linear model. Results In total, 34 791 US screening examinations from 26 489 female patients (mean age at screening, 53.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included. The overall cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average risk of 6-year advanced breast cancer (5.5 [95% CI: 3.5, 8.6] vs 1.3 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.8], respectively; P = .003). The overall false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations was 29.6 (95% CI: 22.6, 38.6) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced breast cancer risk (37.0 [95% CI: 28.2, 48.4] vs 28.1 [95% CI: 20.9, 37.8], respectively; P = .04). The overall PPV3 was 6.9% (67 of 975; 95% CI: 5.3, 8.9) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced cancer risk (15.0% [15 of 100; 95% CI: 9.9, 22.2] vs 4.9% [30 of 615; 95% CI: 3.3, 7.2]; P = .01). Similar patterns in outcomes were observed by 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Conclusion The cancer detection rate and PPV3 of supplemental US screening increased with the estimated risk of advanced and invasive breast cancer. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Helbich and Kapetas in this issue.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Local Staging of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: BreastScreen Australia, the population mammographic screening program for breast cancer, uses two-view digital screening mammography ± ultrasound followed by percutaneous biopsy to detect breast cancer. Secondary breast imaging for further local staging, not performed at BreastScreen, may identify additional clinically significant breast lesions. Staging options include further mammography, bilateral ultrasound, and/or contrast-based imaging (CBI) [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)]. CBI for local staging of screen-detected cancer was introduced at an academic hospital breast service in Melbourne, VIC, Australia. We report findings for otherwise occult disease and resulting treatment changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients staged using CEM between November 2018 and April 2022 were identified from hospital records. Data were extracted from radiology, pathology, and breast unit databases. CEM-detected abnormalities were documented as true positive (TP) for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or otherwise false positive (FP). The impact on surgical decisions was assessed. RESULTS: Of 202 patients aged 44-84 years, 60 (30%) had 74 additional findings [34 (46%) TP, 40 (54%) FP]. These were malignant in 29/202 (14%) patients (79% invasive cancers, 21% DCIS). CEM resulted in surgical changes in 43/202 (21%) patients: wider resection (24/43), conversion to mastectomy (6/43), contralateral breast surgery (6/43), additional ipsilateral excision (5/43), and bracketing (2/43). Additional findings were more common for patients with larger index lesions and for invasive cancer, but there was no significant variation by age, breast density, or index lesion grade. CONCLUSIONS: CEM for local staging of screen-detected breast cancers identified occult malignancy in 14% of patients. CEM improves local staging and may facilitate appropriate management of screen-detected breast cancers.

Association of clinicopathologic and sonographic features with stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increased level of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are associated with therapeutic outcomes and prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). This study aimed to investigate the associations of clinicopathologic and sonographic features with sTILs level in TNBC. METHODS: This study included invasive TNBC patients with postoperative evaluation of sTILs after surgical resection. Tumor shape, margin, orientation, echo pattern, posterior features, calcification, and vascularity were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were categorized into high-sTILs (≥ 20%) and low-sTILs (< 20%) level groups. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess the association of clinicopathologic and sonographic features with sTILs level. RESULTS: The 171 patients (mean ± SD age, 54.7 ± 10.3 years [range, 22‒87 years]) included 58.5% (100/171) with low-sTILs level and 41.5% (71/171) with high-sTILs level. The TNBC tumors with high-sTILs level were more likely to be no special type invasive carcinoma (p = 0.008), higher histologic grade (p = 0.029), higher Ki-67 proliferation rate (all p < 0.05), and lower frequency of associated DCIS component (p = 0.026). In addition, the TNBC tumors with high-sTILs level were more likely to be an oval or round shape (p = 0.001), parallel orientation (p = 0.011), circumscribed or micro-lobulated margins (p < 0.001), complex cystic and solid echo patterns (p = 0.001), posterior enhancement (p = 0.002), and less likely to have a heterogeneous pattern (p = 0.001) and no posterior features (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study showed that preoperative sonographic characteristics could be helpful in distinguishing high-sTILs from low-sTILs in TNBC patients.

Spatiotemporal analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating between malignant and benign breast lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to apply spatiotemporal analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) loops to quantify the enhancement heterogeneity for improving the differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 120 women (age range, 18-82 years; mean, 52 years) scheduled for ultrasound-guided biopsy. With the aid of brightness-mode images, the border of each breast lesion was delineated in the CEUS images. Based on visual evaluation and quantitative metrics, the breast lesions were categorized into four grades of different levels of contrast enhancement. Grade-1 (hyper-enhanced) and grade-2 (partly-enhanced) breast lesions were included in the analysis. Four parameters reflecting enhancement heterogeneity were estimated by spatiotemporal analysis of neighboring time-intensity curves (TICs). By setting the threshold on mean parameter, the diagnostic performance of the four parameters for differentiating benign and malignant lesions was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-four of the 120 patients were categorized as grade 1 or 2 and used for estimating the four parameters. At the pixel level, mutual information and conditional entropy present significantly different values between the benign and malignant lesions (p < 0.001 in patients of grade 1, p = 0.002 in patients of grade 1 or 2). For the classification of breast lesions, mutual information produces the best diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.893 in patients of grade 1, AUC = 0.848 in patients of grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed spatiotemporal analysis for assessing the enhancement heterogeneity shows promising results to aid in the diagnosis of breast cancer by CEUS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The proposed spatiotemporal method can be developed as a standardized software to automatically quantify the enhancement heterogeneity of breast cancer on CEUS, possibly leading to the improved diagnostic accuracy of differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. KEY POINTS: • Advanced spatiotemporal analysis of ultrasound contrast-enhanced loops for aiding the differentiation of malignant or benign breast lesions. • Four parameters reflecting the enhancement heterogeneity were estimated in the hyper- and partly-enhanced breast lesions by analyzing the neighboring pixel-level time-intensity curves. • For the classification of hyper-enhanced breast lesions, mutual information produces the best diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.893).

Current status of optoacoustic breast imaging and future trends in clinical application: is it ready for prime time?

Optoacoustic imaging (OAI) is an emerging field with increasing applications in patients and exploratory clinical trials for breast cancer. Optoacoustic imaging (or photoacoustic imaging) employs non-ionizing, laser light to create thermoelastic expansion in tissues and detect the resulting ultrasonic emission. By combining high optical contrast capabilities with the high spatial resolution and anatomic detail of grayscale ultrasound, OAI offers unique opportunities for visualizing biological function of tissues in vivo. Over the past decade, human breast applications of OAI, including benign/malignant mass differentiation, distinguishing cancer molecular subtype, and predicting metastatic potential, have significantly increased. We discuss the current state of optoacoustic breast imaging, as well as future opportunities and clinical application trends. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Optoacoustic imaging is a novel breast imaging technique that enables the assessment of breast cancer lesions and tumor biology without the risk of ionizing radiation exposure, intravenous contrast, or radionuclide injection. KEY POINTS: • Optoacoustic imaging (OAI) is a safe, non-invasive imaging technique with thriving research and high potential clinical impact. • OAI has been considered a complementary tool to current standard breast imaging techniques. • OAI combines parametric maps of molecules that absorb light and scatter acoustic waves (like hemoglobin, melanin, lipids, and water) with anatomical images, facilitating scalable and real-time molecular evaluation of tissues.

Evaluation of standard breast ultrasonography by adding two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear wave elastography: a prospective, multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce the number of biopsies performed on benign breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS 4-5, we investigated the diagnostic performance of combined two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D + 3D SWE) with standard breast ultrasonography (US) for the BI-RADS assessment of breast lesions. METHODS: A total of 897 breast lesions, categorized as BI-RADS 3-5, were subjected to standard breast US and supplemented by 2D SWE only and 2D + 3D SWE analysis. Based on the malignancy rate of less than 2% for BI-RADS 3, lesions assessed by standard breast US were reclassified with SWE assessment. RESULTS: After standard breast US evaluation, 268 (46.1%) participants underwent benign biopsies in BI-RADS 4-5 lesions. By using separated cutoffs for upstaging BI-RADS 3 at 120 kPa and downstaging BI-RADS 4a at 90 kPa in 2D + 3D SWE reclassification, 123 (21.2%) participants underwent benign biopsy, resulting in a 54.1% reduction (123 versus 268). CONCLUSION: Combining 2D + 3D SWE with standard breast US for reclassification of BI-RADS lesions may achieve a reduction in benign biopsies in BI-RADS 4-5 lesions without sacrificing sensitivity unacceptably. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Combining 2D + 3D SWE with US effectively reduces benign biopsies in breast lesions with categories 4-5, potentially improving diagnostic accuracy of BI-RADS assessment for patients with breast lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR1900026556 KEY POINTS: • Reduce benign biopsy is necessary in breast lesions with BI-RADS 4-5 category. • A reduction of 54.1% on benign biopsies in BI-RADS 4-5 lesions was achieved using 2D + 3D SWE reclassification. • Adding 2D + 3D SWE to standard breast US improved the diagnostic performance of BI-RADS assessment on breast lesions: specificity increased from 54 to 79%, and PPV increased from 54 to 71%, with slight loss in sensitivity (97.2% versus 98.7%) and NPV (98.1% versus 98.7%).

ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women accounting for about 30% of all new cancer cases and the incidence is constantly increasing. Implementation of mammographic screening has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of at least 20% over the last 30 years. Screening programs usually include all women irrespective of their risk of developing breast cancer and with age being the only determining factor. This approach has some recognized limitations, including underdiagnosis, false positive cases, and overdiagnosis. Indeed, breast cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women undergoing cancer screening. Supplemental imaging modalities, including digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, breast MRI, and, more recently, contrast-enhanced mammography, are available and have already shown potential to further increase the diagnostic performances. Use of breast MRI is recommended in high-risk women and women with extremely dense breasts. Artificial intelligence has also shown promising results to support risk categorization and interval cancer reduction. The implementation of a risk-stratified approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach may help to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio as well as the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: Regular mammography should still be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women and women with extremely dense breast tissue should use MRI for supplemental screening or US if MRI is not available. Women need to participate actively in the decision to undergo personalized screening. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Mammography is an effective imaging tool to diagnose breast cancer in an early stage and to reduce breast cancer mortality (evidence level I). Until more evidence is available to move to a personalized approach, regular mammography should be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women should start screening earlier; first with yearly breast MRI which can be supplemented by yearly or biennial mammography starting at 35-40 years old (evidence level I). Breast MRI screening should be also offered to women with extremely dense breasts (evidence level I). If MRI is not available, ultrasound can be performed as an alternative, although the added value of supplemental ultrasound regarding cancer detection remains limited. Individual screening recommendations should be made through a shared decision-making process between women and physicians.

Use of a commercial artificial intelligence-based mammography analysis software for improving breast ultrasound interpretations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a commercial artificial intelligence (AI)-based mammography analysis software for improving the interpretations of breast ultrasound (US)-detected lesions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 1109 breasts that underwent both mammography and US-guided breast biopsy. The AI software processed mammograms and provided an AI score ranging from 0 to 100 for each breast, indicating the likelihood of malignancy. The performance of the AI score in differentiating mammograms with benign outcomes from those revealing cancers following US-guided breast biopsy was evaluated. In addition, prediction models for benign outcomes were constructed based on clinical and imaging characteristics with and without AI scores, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The AI software had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) in differentiating between benign and cancer cases. The prediction models that did not include AI scores (non-AI model), only used AI scores (AI-only model), and included AI scores (integrated model) had AUROCs of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88) in the development cohort, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.88), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the validation cohort, respectively. The integrated model outperformed the non-AI model in the development and validation cohorts (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: The commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could be a valuable adjunct to clinical decision-making for managing US-detected breast lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could potentially reduce unnecessary biopsies and improve patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: • Breast US has high rates of false-positive interpretations. • A commercial AI-based mammography analysis software could distinguish mammograms having benign outcomes from those revealing cancers after US-guided breast biopsy. • A commercial AI-based mammography analysis software may improve interpretations for breast US-detected lesions.

A conditional inference tree model for predicting cancer risk of non-mass lesions detected on breast ultrasound.

OBJECTIVES: To generate and validate a prediction model based on imaging features for cancer risk of non-mass lesions (NMLs) detected on breast ultrasound (US). METHODS: In this single-center study, consecutive women with 503 NMLs detected on breast US between 2012 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. The lesions were randomly assigned to the training or testing dataset with a 70/30 split. Age, symptoms, lesion size, and US features were collected. Multivariate analyses were employed to identify risk factors associated with malignancy. The predictive model was developed by using conditional inference trees (CTREE). RESULTS: There were 498 patients (50.9 ± 13.29 years; range, 22-88 years) with 503 NMLs with histopathologic results or > 2-year follow-up, including 224 (44.5%) benign and 279 (55.5%) malignant lesions. At multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.11, p < 0.001), NMLs with focal mass effect (OR = 3.03, 95% CI, 1.59-5.81, p = 0.001), indistinct glandular-fat interface (GFI) (OR = 4.23, 95% CI, 2.31-7.73, p < 0.001), geographic (OR = 3.47, 95% CI, 1.20-10.8, p = 0.022) and mottled (OR = 3.67, 95% CI, 1.32-10.21, p = 0.013) patterns, and calcifications (OR = 2.15, 95% CI, 1.16-4.01, p = 0.016) were associated with malignancy. The GFI status, architectural patterns, general morphology, and calcifications were consistently identified as the strongest US predictors of malignancy using CTREE analysis. Based on these factors, individuals were stratified into six risk groups. The predictive model showed an area under the curve of 0.797 in the testing dataset. CONCLUSION: The CTREE model efficiently aids in interpreting and managing ultrasound-detected breast NMLs, overcoming BI-RADS limitations by refining cancer risk stratification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The CTREE model allows for the reclassification of BI-RADS categories into subgroups with varying malignancy probabilities, thus providing a valuable enhancement to the BI-RADS assessment for the diagnosis of ultrasound-detected NMLs, with the potential to minimize unnecessary biopsies. KEY POINTS: • The indistinct glandular-fat interface (GFI) status, NML with focal mass effect, geographic or mottled patterns, and calcifications are the strongest imaging predictors of malignant non-mass lesions (NMLs) detected on breast US. • A practical system has been created to categorize NMLs found in breast US; each classification is associated with a degree of diagnostic certainty. • The model may contribute to patient stratification by determining the relative likelihood of malignancy and thus support clinical decision-making and evidence-based management.

Diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D-ABUS) in a clinical screening setting-a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D-ABUS) in breast cancer screening in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had 3D-ABUS between January 2014 and January 2022 for screening were included in this retrospective study. The images were reported by 1 of 6 breast radiologists based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS). The 3D-ABUS was reviewed together with the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection yield were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 3616 studies were performed in 1555 women (breast density C/D 95.5% (n = 3455/3616), breast density A/B 4.0% (n = 144/3616), density unknown (0.5% (n = 17/3616)). A total of 259 lesions were detected on 3D-ABUS (87.6% (n = 227/259) masses and 12.4% (n = 32/259) architectural distortions). The recall rate was 5.2% (n = 188/3616) (CI 4.5-6.0%) with only 36.7% (n = 69/188) cases recalled to another date. Moreover, recall declined over time. There were 3.4% (n = 123/3616) biopsies performed, with 52.8% (n = 65/123) biopsies due to an abnormality detected in 3D-ABUS alone. Ten of 65 lesions were malignant, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 15.4% (n = 10/65) (CI 7.6-26.5%)). The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS is 2.77 per 1000 screening tests (CI 1.30-5.1). CONCLUSION: The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS in a real clinical screening setting is comparable to the results reported in previous prospective studies, with lower recall and biopsy rates. 3D-ABUS also may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 3D automated breast ultrasound screening performance in a clinical setting is comparable to previous prospective studies, with better recall and biopsy rates. KEY POINTS: • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a reliable and reproducible tool that provides a three-dimensional representation of the breast and allows image visualisation in axial, coronal and sagittal. • The diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound in a real clinical setting is comparable to its performance in previously published prospective studies, with improved recall and biopsy rates. • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a useful adjunct to mammography in dense breasts and may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined.

Longitudinal ultrasound-based AI model predicts axillary lymph node response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Developing a deep learning radiomics model from longitudinal breast ultrasound and sonographer's axillary ultrasound diagnosis for predicting axillary lymph node (ALN) response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer. METHODS: Breast cancer patients undergoing NAC followed by surgery were recruited from three centers between November 2016 and December 2022. We collected ultrasound images for extracting tumor-derived radiomics and deep learning features, selecting quantitative features through various methods. Two machine learning models based on random forest were developed using pre-NAC and post-NAC features. A support vector machine integrated these data into a fusion model, evaluated via the area under the curve (AUC), decision curve analysis, and calibration curves. We compared the fusion model's performance against sonographer's diagnosis from pre-NAC and post-NAC axillary ultrasonography, referencing histological outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection. RESULTS: In the validation cohort, the fusion model outperformed both pre-NAC (AUC: 0.899 vs. 0.786, p < 0.001) and post-NAC models (AUC: 0.899 vs. 0.853, p = 0.014), as well as the sonographer's diagnosis of ALN status on pre-NAC and post-NAC axillary ultrasonography (AUC: 0.899 vs. 0.719, p < 0.001). Decision curve analysis revealed patient benefits from the fusion model across threshold probabilities from 0.02 to 0.98. The model also enhanced sonographer's diagnostic ability, increasing accuracy from 71.9% to 79.2%. CONCLUSION: The deep learning radiomics model accurately predicted the ALN response to NAC in breast cancer. Furthermore, the model will assist sonographers to improve their diagnostic ability on ALN status before surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our AI model based on pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy ultrasound can accurately predict axillary lymph node metastasis and assist sonographer's axillary diagnosis. KEY POINTS: Axillary lymph node metastasis status affects the choice of surgical treatment, and currently relies on subjective ultrasound. Our AI model outperformed sonographer's visual diagnosis on axillary ultrasound. Our deep learning radiomics model can improve sonographers' diagnosis and might assist in surgical decision-making.

Imaging the dense breast.

The sensitivity of mammography reduces as breast density increases, which impacts breast screening and locoregional staging in breast cancer. Supplementary imaging with other modalities can offer improved cancer detection, but this often comes at the cost of more false positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography, which assess tumour enhancement following contrast administration, are more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound, which predominantly rely on the assessment of tumour morphology.

Automatic classification and prioritisation of actionable BI-RADS categories using natural language processing models.

AIM: To facilitate the routine tasks performed by radiologists in their evaluation of breast radiology reports, by enhancing the communication of relevant results to referring physicians via a natural language processing (NLP)-based system to classify and prioritise Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A NLP-based system was developed to classify and prioritise BI-RADS categories from breast ultrasound and mammogram reports, with the potential to streamline and speed up the standard procedures that radiologists must follow to evaluate and categorise breast imaging results. BI-RADS category extraction was divided into two specific tasks: (1) multi-label classification of BI-RADS categories (0-6) and (2) classification of high-priority (BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 and 5) and low priority (BI-RADS 1, 2, and 6) reports according to the previous BI-RADS assessment. RESULTS: To develop the NLP tool, three different Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-based models (XLM-RoBERTa, BETO, and Bio-BERT-Spanish) were trained and tested on three distinct corpora (containing only breast ultrasound reports, only mammogram reports, or both), and achieved an accuracy of 74.29-77.5% in detecting BI-RADS categories and 88.52-91.02% in prioritising reports. CONCLUSION: The system designed can effectively classify all BI-RADS categories present in a single radiology report. In the clinical setting, such an automated tool can assist radiologists in evaluating breast radiology reports and decision-making tasks and enhance the speed of communicating priority BI-RADS reports to referring physicians.