Reproducibility assessment of uptake on dedicated breast PET for noise discrimination.

OBJECTIVES: Dedicated breast PET (dbPET) systems have improved the detection of small breast cancers but have increased false-positive diagnoses due to an increased chance of noise detection. This study examined whether reproducibility assessment using paired images helped to improve noise discrimination and diagnostic performance in dbPET. METHODS: This study included 21 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent [18F]FDG-dbPET and contrast-enhanced breast MRI. A 10-min dbPET data scan was acquired per breast, and two sets of reconstructed images were generated (named dbPET-1 and dbPET-2, respectively), each of which consisted of randomly allocated 5-min data from the 10-min data. Uptake spots higher than the background were indexed for the study with visual assessment. All indexed uptakes on dbPET-1 were evaluated using dbPET-2 for reproducibility. MRI findings based on the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 2013 were used as the gold standard. Uptake spots that corresponded to BI-RADS 1 on MRI were considered noise, while those with BI-RADS 4b-6 were considered malignancies. The diagnostic performance of dbPET for malignancy was evaluated using four different criteria: any uptake on dbPET-1 regarded as positive (criterion A), a subjective visual assessment of dbPET-1 (criterion B), reproducibility assessment between dbPET-1 and dbPET-2 (criterion C), and a combination of B and C (criterion D). RESULTS: A total of 213 indexed uptake spots were identified on dbPET-1, including 152, 15, 6, 6, and 34 lesions classified as BI-RADS MRI categories 1, 2, 4b, 4c, and 5, respectively. Overall, 31.9% of the index uptake values were reproducible. All malignant lesions were reproducible, whereas 93.4% of noise was not reproducible. The sensitivities for malignancy for criteria A, B, C, and D were 100%, 91.3%, 100%, and 91.3%, respectively, with positive predictive values (PPVs) of 21.4%, 68.9%, 67.6%, and 82.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that reproducibility assessment helped reduce false-positive findings caused by noise on dbPET without lowering the sensitivity for malignancy. While subjective visual assessment was also efficient in increasing PPV, it occasionally missed malignant uptake.

Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities.

Breast density notification laws, passed in 19 states as of October 2014, mandate that patients be informed of their breast density. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this legislation on radiology practices, including performance of breast cancer risk assessment and supplemental screening studies. A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was emailed to radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging between August 2013 and March 2014. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Around 121 radiologists from 110 facilities in 34 USA states and 1 Canadian site responded. About 50% (55/110) of facilities had breast density legislation, 36% of facilities (39/109) performed breast cancer risk assessment (one facility did not respond). Risk assessment was performed as a new task in response to density legislation in 40% (6/15) of facilities in states with notification laws. However, there was no significant difference in performing risk assessment between facilities in states with a law and those without (p < 0.831). In anticipation of breast density legislation, 33% (16/48), 6% (3/48), and 6% (3/48) of facilities in states with laws implemented handheld whole breast ultrasound (WBUS), automated WBUS, and tomosynthesis, respectively. The ratio of facilities offering handheld WBUS was significantly higher in states with a law than in states without (p < 0.001). In response to breast density legislation, more than 33% of facilities are offering supplemental screening with WBUS and tomosynthesis, and many are performing formal risk assessment for determining patient management.

Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breast MRI: Diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic value of conventional, bilateral diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and high-resolution targeted DWI of known breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one consecutive patients with known breast cancer or suspicious breast lesions were scanned with the conventional bilateral DWI technique, a high-resolution, reduced field of view (rFOV) DWI technique, and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) (3.0 T). We compared bilateral DWI and rFOV DWI quantitatively by measuring the lesions' apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. For qualitative comparison, three dedicated breast radiologists scored image quality and performed lesion interpretation. RESULTS: In a phantom, ADC values were in good agreement with the reference values. Twenty-one patients (30 lesions: 14 invasive carcinomas, 10 benign lesions [of which 5 cysts], 3 high-risk, and 3 in situ carcinomas) were included. Cysts and high-risk lesions were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Quantitatively, both bilateral and rFOV DWI measured lower ADC values in invasive tumors than other lesions. In vivo, rFOV DWI gave lower ADC values than bilateral DWI (1.11 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s vs. 1.24 × 10(-3) mm(2) /s, P = 0.002). Regions of interest (ROIs) were comparable in size between the two techniques (2.90 vs. 2.13 cm(2) , P = 0.721). Qualitatively, all three radiologists scored sharpness of rFOV DWI images as significantly higher than bilateral DWI (P ≤ 0.002). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed a higher area under the curve (AUC) in BI-RADS classification for rFOV DWI compared to bilateral DWI (0.71 to 0.93 vs. 0.61 to 0.76, respectively). CONCLUSION: Tumor morphology can be assessed in more detail with high-resolution DWI (rFOV) than with standard bilateral DWI by providing significantly sharper images.

Patient awareness of breast density and interest in supplemental screening tests: comparison of an academic facility and a county hospital.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure women's knowledge of breast density and their attitudes toward supplemental screening tests in the setting of the California Breast Density Notification Law at an academic facility and a county hospital, serving women with higher and lower socioeconomic status, respectively. METHODS: Institutional review board exemptions were obtained. A survey was administered during screening mammography at two facilities, assessing women's awareness of and interest in knowing their breast density and interest in and willingness to pay for supplemental whole breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEMG). The results were compared by using Fisher exact tests between groups. RESULTS: A total of 105 of 130 and 132 of 153 women responded to the survey at the academic and county facilities, respectively. Among respondents at the academic and county facilities, 23% and 5% were aware of their breast density, and 94% and 79% wanted to know their density. A majority were interested in supplemental ultrasonography and CEMG at both sites; however, fewer women had a willingness to pay for the supplemental tests at the county hospital compared with those at the academic facility (22% and 70%, respectively, for ultrasound, P < .0001; 20% and 65%, respectively, for CEMG, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both groups of women were interested in knowing their breast density and in supplemental screening tests. However, women at the county hospital were less willing to incur out-of-pocket expenses, suggesting a potential for a disparity in health care access for women of lower socioeconomic status after the enactment of breast density notification legislation.