ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update.

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Digital reference object toolkit of breast DCE MRI for quantitative evaluation of image reconstruction and analysis methods.

PURPOSE: To develop a digital reference object (DRO) toolkit to generate realistic breast DCE-MRI data for quantitative assessment of image reconstruction and data analysis methods. METHODS: A simulation framework in a form of DRO toolkit has been developed using the ultrafast and conventional breast DCE-MRI data of 53 women with malignant (n = 25) or benign (n = 28) lesions. We segmented five anatomical regions and performed pharmacokinetic analysis to determine the ranges of pharmacokinetic parameters for each segmented region. A database of the segmentations and their pharmacokinetic parameters is included in the DRO toolkit that can generate a large number of realistic breast DCE-MRI data. We provide two potential examples for our DRO toolkit: assessing the accuracy of an image reconstruction method using undersampled simulated radial k-space data and assessing the impact of the B 1 + $$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ field inhomogeneity on estimated parameters. RESULTS: The estimated pharmacokinetic parameters for each region showed agreement with previously reported values. For the assessment of the reconstruction method, it was found that the temporal regularization resulted in significant underestimation of estimated parameters by up to 57% and 10% with the weighting factor λ = 0.1 and 0.01, respectively. We also demonstrated that spatial discrepancy of v p $$ {v}_p $$ and PS $$ \mathrm{PS} $$ increase to about 33% and 51% without correction for B 1 + $$ {\mathrm{B}}_1^{+} $$ field. CONCLUSION: We have developed a DRO toolkit that includes realistic morphology of tumor lesions along with the expected pharmacokinetic parameter ranges. This simulation framework can generate many images for quantitative assessment of DCE-MRI reconstruction and analysis methods.

Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women.

PURPOSE: There are insufficient large-scale studies comparing the performance of screening mammography in women of different races. This study aims to compare the screening performance metrics across racial and age groups in the National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: All screening mammograms performed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, in women aged 30-100 years from 746 mammography facilities in 46 U.S. states in the NMD were included. Patients were stratified by 10-year age intervals and 5 racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, White, unknown). Incidence of risk factors (breast density, personal history, family history of breast cancer, age), and time since prior exams were compared. Five screening mammography metrics were calculated: recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive values for recalls (PPV1), biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). RESULTS: 29,479,655 screening mammograms performed in 13,181,241 women between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, from the NMD were analyzed. The overall mean performance metrics were RR 10.00% (95% CI 9.99-10.02), CDR 4.18/1000 (4.16-4.21), PPV1 4.18% (4.16-4.20), PPV2 25.84% (25.72-25.97), PPV3 25.78% (25.66-25.91). With advancing age, RR significantly decreases, while CDR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 significantly increase. Incidence of personal/family history of breast cancer, breast density, age, prior mammogram availability, and time since prior mammogram were mostly similar across all races. Compared to White women, African American women had significantly higher RR, but lower CDR, PPV1, PPV2 and PPV3. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of screening mammography increase with age, including for women age > 70 and across all races. Screening mammography is effective; with lower RR and higher CDR, PPV2, and PPV3 with advancing age. African American women have poorer outcomes from screening mammography (higher RR and lower CDR), compared to White and all women in the NMD. Racial disparity can be partly explained by higher rate of African American women lost to follow up.

Breast cancer outcomes based on method of detection in community-based breast cancer registry.

PURPOSE: The impact of opportunistic screening mammography in the United States is difficult to quantify, partially due to lack of inclusion regarding method of detection (MOD) in national registries. This study sought to determine the feasibility of MOD collection in a multicenter community registry and to compare outcomes and characteristics of breast cancer based on MOD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of breast cancer patients from a multicenter tumor registry in Missouri from January 2004 - December 2018. Registry data were extracted by certified tumor registrars and included MOD, clinicopathologic information, and treatment. MOD was assigned as screen-detected or clinically detected. Data were analyzed at the patient level. Chi-squared tests were used for categorical variable comparison and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for numerical variable comparison. RESULTS: 5351 women (median age, 63 years; interquartile range, 53-73 years) were included. Screen-detected cancers were smaller than clinically detected cancers (median size 12 mm vs. 25 mm; P < .001) and more likely node-negative (81% vs. 54%; P < .001), lower grade (P < .001), and lower stage (P < .001). Screen-detected cancers were more likely treated with lumpectomy vs. mastectomy (73% vs. 41%; P < .001) and less likely to require chemotherapy (24% vs. 52%; P < .001). Overall survival for patients with invasive breast cancer was higher for screen-detected cancers (89% vs. 74%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: MOD can be routinely collected and linked to breast cancer outcomes through tumor registries, with demonstration of significant differences in outcome and characteristics of breast cancers based on MOD. Routine inclusion of MOD in US tumor registries would help quantify the impact of opportunistic screening mammography in the US.

An Efficient Deep Neural Network to Classify Large 3D Images With Small Objects.

3D imaging enables accurate diagnosis by providing spatial information about organ anatomy. However, using 3D images to train AI models is computationally challenging because they consist of 10x or 100x more pixels than their 2D counterparts. To be trained with high-resolution 3D images, convolutional neural networks resort to downsampling them or projecting them to 2D. We propose an effective alternative, a neural network that enables efficient classification of full-resolution 3D medical images. Compared to off-the-shelf convolutional neural networks, our network, 3D Globally-Aware Multiple Instance Classifier (3D-GMIC), uses 77.98%-90.05% less GPU memory and 91.23%-96.02% less computation. While it is trained only with image-level labels, without segmentation labels, it explains its predictions by providing pixel-level saliency maps. On a dataset collected at NYU Langone Health, including 85,526 patients with full-field 2D mammography (FFDM), synthetic 2D mammography, and 3D mammography, 3D-GMIC achieves an AUC of 0.831 (95% CI: 0.769-0.887) in classifying breasts with malignant findings using 3D mammography. This is comparable to the performance of GMIC on FFDM (0.816, 95% CI: 0.737-0.878) and synthetic 2D (0.826, 95% CI: 0.754-0.884), which demonstrates that 3D-GMIC successfully classified large 3D images despite focusing computation on a smaller percentage of its input compared to GMIC. Therefore, 3D-GMIC identifies and utilizes extremely small regions of interest from 3D images consisting of hundreds of millions of pixels, dramatically reducing associated computational challenges. 3D-GMIC generalizes well to BCS-DBT, an external dataset from Duke University Hospital, achieving an AUC of 0.848 (95% CI: 0.798-0.896).

Problem-solving Breast MRI.

Breast MRI has high sensitivity and negative predictive value, making it well suited to problem solving when other imaging modalities or physical examinations yield results that are inconclusive for the presence of breast cancer. Indications for problem-solving MRI include equivocal or uncertain imaging findings at mammography and/or US; suspicious nipple discharge or skin changes suspected to represent an abnormality when conventional imaging results are negative for cancer; lesions categorized as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4, which are not amenable to biopsy; and discordant radiologic-pathologic findings after biopsy. MRI should not precede or replace careful diagnostic workup with mammography and US and should not be used when a biopsy can be safely performed. The role of MRI in characterizing calcifications is controversial, and management of calcifications should depend on their mammographic appearance because ductal carcinoma in situ may not appear enhancing on MR images. In addition, ductal carcinoma in situ detected solely with MRI is not associated with a higher likelihood of an upgrade to invasive cancer compared with ductal carcinoma in situ detected with other modalities. MRI for triage of high-risk lesions is a subject of ongoing investigation, with a possible future role for MRI in decreasing excisional biopsies. The accuracy of MRI is likely to increase with the use of advanced techniques such as deep learning, which will likely expand the indications for problem-solving MRI. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Multisite MRI Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Repeatability and Reproducibility across 3 T Scanners in a Breast Diffusion Phantom: A BReast Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Multisite (BRIMM) Study.

BACKGROUND: Monoexponential apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and biexponential intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging is helpful in the characterization of breast tumors. However, repeatability/reproducibility studies across scanners and across sites are scarce. PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of ADC and IVIM parameters (tissue diffusivity (Dt ), perfusion fraction (Fp ) and pseudo-diffusion (Dp )) within and across sites employing MRI scanners from different vendors utilizing 16-channel breast array coils in a breast diffusion phantom. STUDY TYPE: Phantom repeatability. PHANTOM: A breast phantom containing tubes of different polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) concentrations, water, fat, and sponge flow chambers, together with an MR-compatible liquid crystal (LC) thermometer. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Bipolar gradient twice-refocused spin echo sequence and monopolar gradient single spin echo sequence at 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Studies were performed twice in each of two scanners, located at different sites, on each of 2 days, resulting in four studies per scanner. ADCs of the PVP and water were normalized to the vendor-provided calibrated values at the temperature indicated by the LC thermometer for repeatability/reproducibility comparisons. STATISTICAL TESTS: ADC and IVIM repeatability and reproducibility within and across sites were estimated via the within-system coefficient of variation (wCV). Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was also computed between IVIM metrics and flow speed. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: ADC and Dt demonstrated excellent repeatability (<2%; <3%, respectively) and reproducibility (both <5%) at the two sites. Fp and Dp exhibited good repeatability (mean of two sites 3.67% and 5.59%, respectively) and moderate reproducibility (mean of two sites 15.96% and 13.3%, respectively). The mean intersite reproducibility (%) of Fp /Dp /Dt was 50.96/13.68/5.59, respectively. Fp and Dt demonstrated high correlations with flow speed while Dp showed lower correlations. Fp correlations with flow speed were significant at both sites. DATA CONCLUSION: IVIM reproducibility results were promising and similar to ADC, particularly for Dt . The results were reproducible within both sites, and a progressive trend toward reproducibility across sites except for Fp . LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Current Practices in Anticoagulation Management for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Image-guided Breast Procedures.

Objective: Given variability in how practices manage patients on antithrombotic medications, we undertook this study to understand the current practice of antithrombotic management for patients undergoing percutaneous breast and axillary procedures. Methods: A 20-item survey with multiple-choice and write-in options was emailed to 2094 active North American members of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) in March 2021. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed quantitatively, with free-text responses categorized by themes. Results: Three-hundred twenty-six of 2094 members (15.6%) completed the survey. Eighty-seven percent (274/313) reported having a policy for managing antithrombotic medications. Fifty-nine percent (185/312) reported routinely withholding medications before biopsy, more commonly in the Northeast and South (P = 0.08). Withholding of medications did not vary by lesion location (182/308, 59%, breast vs 181/308, 58.7%, axillary; P = 0.81). Respondents were statistically more likely to withhold medications if using a vacuum-assisted device for all classes of antithrombotic medications (P < 0.001). Up to 50.2% (100/199) on warfarin and 33.6% (66/196) on direct oral anticoagulants had medications withheld more stringently than guidelines suggest. Conclusion: Based on a survey of SBI members, breast imaging practices vary widely in antithrombotic management for image-guided breast and axillary procedures. Of the 60% who withhold antithrombotic medications, a minority comply with recommended withhold guidelines, placing at least some patients at potential risk for thrombotic events. Breast imaging radiologists should weigh the risks and benefits of withholding these medications, and if they elect to withhold should closely follow evidence-based guidelines to minimize the risks of this practice.

PACS-integrated machine learning breast density classifier: clinical validation.

OBJECTIVE: To test the performance of a novel machine learning-based breast density tool. The tool utilizes a convolutional neural network to predict the BI-RADS based density assessment of a study. The clinical density assessments of 33,000 mammographic examinations (164,000 images) from one academic medical center (Site A) were used for training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an IRB approved HIPAA compliant study performed at two academic medical centers. The validation data set was composed of 500 studies from one site (Site A) and 700 from another (Site B). At Site A, each study was assessed by three breast radiologists and the majority (consensus) assessment was used as truth. At Site B, if the tool agreed with the clinical reading, then it was considered to have correctly predicted the clinical reading. In cases where the tool and the clinical reading disagreed, then the study was evaluated by three radiologists and the consensus reading was used as the clinical reading. RESULTS: For the classification into the four categories of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®), the AI classifier had an accuracy of 84.6% at Site A and 89.7% at Site B. For binary classification (dense vs. non-dense), the AI classifier had an accuracy of 94.4% at Site A and 97.4% at Site B. In no case did the classifier disagree with the consensus reading by more than one category. CONCLUSIONS: The automated breast density tool showed high agreement with radiologists' assessments of breast density.

AI-Enhanced PET and MR Imaging for Patients with Breast Cancer.

New challenges are currently faced by clinical and surgical oncologists in the management of patients with breast cancer, mainly related to the need for molecular and prognostic data. Recent technological advances in diagnostic imaging and informatics have led to the introduction of functional imaging modalities, such as hybrid PET/MR imaging, and artificial intelligence (AI) software, aimed at the extraction of quantitative radiomics data, which may reflect tumor biology and behavior. In this article, the most recent applications of radiomics and AI to PET/MR imaging are described to address the new needs of clinical and surgical oncology.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses: 2022 Update.

Palpable masses in women are the most common symptom associated with breast cancer. This document reviews and evaluates the current evidence for imaging recommendations of palpable masses in women less than 30 to over 40 years of age. There is also a review of several different scenarios and recommendations after initial imaging. Ultrasound is usually the appropriate initial imaging for women under 30 years of age. If ultrasound findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 4 or 5), it is usually appropriate to continue with diagnostic tomosynthesis or mammography with image-guided biopsy. No further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign or negative. The patient under 30 years of age with a probably benign ultrasound may undergo further imaging; however, the clinical scenario plays a role in the decision to biopsy. For women between 30 to 39 years of age, ultrasound, diagnostic mammography, tomosynthesis, and ultrasound are usually appropriate. Diagnostic mammography and tomosynthesis are the appropriate initial imaging for women 40 years of age or older, as ultrasound may be appropriate if the patient had a negative mammogram within 6 months of presentation or immediately after mammography findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy. If the diagnostic mammogram, tomosynthesis, and ultrasound findings are probably benign, no further imaging is necessary unless the clinical scenario indicates a biopsy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR.

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Women 75 Years Old or Older: To Screen or Not to Screen?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with the incidence rising substantially with age. Older women are a vulnerable population at increased risk of developing and dying from breast cancer. However, women aged 75 years and older were excluded from all randomized controlled screening trials, so the best available data regarding screening benefits and risks in this age group are from observational studies and modeling predictions. Benefits of screening in older women are the same as those in younger women: early detection of smaller lower-stage cancers, resulting in less invasive treatment and lower morbidity and mortality. Mammography performs significantly better in older women with higher sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values, accompanied by lower recall rates and false positives. The overdiagnosis rate is low, with benefits outweighing risks until age 90 years. Although there are conflicting national and international guidelines about whether to continue screening mammography in women beyond age 74 years, clinicians can use shared decision making to help women make decisions about screening and fully engage them in the screening process. For women aged 75 years and older in good health, continuing annual screening mammography will save the most lives. An informed discussion of the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women needs to include each woman's individual values, overall health status, and comorbidities. This article will review the benefits, risks, and controversies surrounding screening mammography in women 75 years old and older and compare the current recommendations for screening this population from national and international professional organizations. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. In digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density is assessed visually using the four-category scale developed by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition as of November 2022). Epidemiologically based risk models, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model (version 8), demonstrate superior modeling performance when mammographic density is incorporated. Beyond just density, a separate mammographic measure of breast cancer risk is parenchymal textural complexity. With advancements in radiomics and deep learning, mammographic textural patterns can be assessed quantitatively and incorporated into risk models. Other supplemental screening modalities, such as breast US and MRI, offer independent risk measures complementary to those derived from mammography. Breast US allows the two components of fibroglandular tissue (stromal and glandular) to be visualized separately in a manner that is not possible with mammography. A higher glandular component at screening breast US is associated with higher risk. With MRI, a higher background parenchymal enhancement of the fibroglandular tissue has also emerged as an imaging marker for risk assessment. Imaging markers observed at mammography, US, and MRI are powerful tools in refining breast cancer risk prediction, beyond mammographic density alone.