Background Breast Parenchymal Signal During Menstrual Cycle on Diffusion-Weighted MRI: A Prospective Study in Healthy Premenopausal Women.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate the influence of the menstrual cycle on the background parenchymal signal (BPS) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the breast on diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) in healthy premenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven healthy premenopausal women (median age, 37 years; range, 33-49 years) with regular menstrual cycles participated in this study. DW-MRI was performed during each of the four phases of the menstrual cycle (four examinations in total). Three radiologists independently assessed the BPS visual grade on images with b-values of 800 sec/mm² (b800), 1200 sec/mm² (b1200), and a synthetic 1500 sec/mm² (sb1500). Additionally, one radiologist conducted a quantitative analysis to measure the BPS volume (%) and ADC values of the BPS (ADCBPS) and fibroglandular tissue (ADCFGT). Changes in the visual grade, BPS volume (%), ADCBPS, and ADCFGT during the menstrual cycle were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: The visual grade of BPS in seven women varied from mild to marked on b800 and from minimal to moderate on b1200 and sb1500. As the b-value increased, the visual grade of BPS decreased. On b800 and sb1500, two of the seven volunteers showed the highest visual grade in the early follicular phase (EFP). On b1200, three of the seven volunteers showed the highest visual grades in EFP. The BPS volume (%) on b800 and b1200 showed the highest value in three of the six volunteers with dense breasts in EFP. Three of the seven volunteers showed the lowest ADCBPS in the EFP. Four of the seven volunteers showed the highest ADCBPS in the early luteal phase (ELP) and the lowest ADCFGT in the late follicular phase (LFP). CONCLUSION: Most volunteers did not exhibit specific BPS patterns during their menstrual cycles. However, the highest BPS and lowest ADCBPS were more frequently observed in EFP than in the other menstrual cycle phases, whereas the highest ADCBPS was more common in ELP. The lowest ADCFGT was more frequent in LFP.

Automated Versus Handheld Breast Ultrasound for Evaluating Axillary Lymph Nodes in Patients With Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a relevant imaging technique for early breast cancer diagnosis and is increasingly being used as a supplementary tool for mammography. This study compared the performance of ABUS and handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in detecting and characterizing the axillary lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women with recently diagnosed early breast cancer (≤ T2) who underwent both ABUS and HHUS examinations for axilla (September 2017-May 2018). ABUS and HHUS findings were compared using pathological outcomes as reference standards. Diagnostic performance in predicting any axillary LN metastasis and heavy nodal-burden metastases (i.e., ≥ 3 LNs) was evaluated. The ABUS-HHUS agreement for visibility and US findings was calculated. RESULTS: The study included 377 women (53.1 ± 11.1 years). Among 385 breast cancers in 377 patients, 101 had axillary LN metastases and 30 had heavy nodal burden metastases. ABUS identified benign-looking or suspicious axillary LNs (average, 1.4 ± 0.8) in 246 axillae (63.9%, 246/385). According to the per-breast analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of ABUS in predicting axillary LN metastases were 43.6% (44/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.9% (44/58), 82.6% (270/327), and 81.6% (314/385), respectively. The corresponding results for HHUS were 41.6% (42/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.0% (42/56), 82.1% (270/329), and 81.0% (312/385), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of ABUS (P ≥ 0.53). The performance results for heavy nodal-burden metastases were 70.0% (21/30), 89.6% (318/355), 36.2% (21/58), 97.3% (318/327), and 88.1% (339/385), respectively, for ABUS and 66.7% (20/30), 89.9% (319/355), 35.7% (20/56), 97.0% (319/329), and 88.1% (339/385), respectively, for HHUS, also not showing significant difference (P ≥ 0.57). The ABUS-HHUS agreement was 95.9% (236/246; Cohen's kappa = 0.883). CONCLUSION: Although ABUS showed limited sensitivity in diagnosing axillary LN metastasis in early breast cancer, it was still useful as the performance was comparable to that of HHUS.

Unenhanced Breast MRI With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection: Effects of Training on Performance and Agreement of Subspecialty Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether reader training improves the performance and agreement of radiologists in interpreting unenhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A study of 96 breasts (35 cancers, 24 benign, and 37 negative) in 48 asymptomatic women was performed between June 2019 and October 2020. High-resolution DWI with b-values of 0, 800, and 1200 sec/mm² was performed using a 3.0-T system. Sixteen breast radiologists independently reviewed the DWI, apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and T1-weighted MRI scans and recorded the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category for each breast. After a 2-h training session and a 5-month washout period, they re-evaluated the BI-RADS categories. A BI-RADS category of 4 (lesions with at least two suspicious criteria) or 5 (more than two suspicious criteria) was considered positive. The per-breast diagnostic performance of each reader was compared between the first and second reviews. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using a multi-rater κ analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Before training, the mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 16 readers were 70.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59.4-79.9), 90.8% (95% CI: 85.6-94.2), and 83.5% (95% CI: 78.6-87.4), respectively. After training, significant improvements in specificity (95.2%; 95% CI: 90.8-97.5; P = 0.001) and accuracy (85.9%; 95% CI: 80.9-89.8; P = 0.01) were observed, but no difference in sensitivity (69.8%; 95% CI: 58.1-79.4; P = 0.58) was observed. Regarding inter-reader agreement, the κ values were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52-0.63) before training and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62-0.74) after training, with a difference of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18; P = 0.01). The ICC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.74) before training and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.80) after training (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Brief reader training improved the performance and agreement of interpretations by breast radiologists using unenhanced MRI with DWI.