RESUMEN
As the proportion of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer increases, the role of imaging for staging and surveillance purposes should be determined based on evidence-based guidelines. It is important to understand the indications for extent of disease evaluation and staging, as unnecessary imaging can delay care and even result in adverse outcomes. In asymptomatic patients that received treatment for curative intent, there is no role for imaging to screen for distant recurrence. Routine surveillance with an annual 2-D mammogram and/or tomosynthesis is recommended to detect an in-breast recurrence or a new primary breast cancer in women with a history of breast cancer, and MRI is increasingly used as an additional screening tool in this population, especially in women with dense breasts. 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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Invasividad Neoplásica , Sociedades Médicas , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Humanos , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Invasividad Neoplásica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Mamografía/normas , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Sociedades Médicas , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Femenino , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Estados Unidos , Mamografía/normas , Mamografía/métodos , Medición de Riesgo , Tamizaje Masivo/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Breast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer complemented by a higher risk of cancers being missed during screening of dense breasts due to reduced sensitivity of mammography. Automated, deep learning-based prediction of breast density could provide subject-specific risk assessment and flag difficult cases during screening. However, there is a lack of evidence for generalisability across imaging techniques and, importantly, across race. METHODS: This study used a large, racially diverse dataset with 69,697 mammographic studies comprising 451,642 individual images from 23,057 female participants. A deep learning model was developed for four-class BI-RADS density prediction. A comprehensive performance evaluation assessed the generalisability across two imaging techniques, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and two-dimensional synthetic (2DS) mammography. A detailed subgroup performance and bias analysis assessed the generalisability across participants' race. RESULTS: Here we show that a model trained on FFDM-only achieves a 4-class BI-RADS classification accuracy of 80.5% (79.7-81.4) on FFDM and 79.4% (78.5-80.2) on unseen 2DS data. When trained on both FFDM and 2DS images, the performance increases to 82.3% (81.4-83.0) and 82.3% (81.3-83.1). Racial subgroup analysis shows unbiased performance across Black, White, and Asian participants, despite a separate analysis confirming that race can be predicted from the images with a high accuracy of 86.7% (86.0-87.4). CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning-based breast density prediction generalises across imaging techniques and race. No substantial disparities are found for any subgroup, including races that were never seen during model development, suggesting that density predictions are unbiased.
Women with dense breasts have a higher risk of breast cancer. For dense breasts, it is also more difficult to spot cancer in mammograms, which are the X-ray images commonly used for breast cancer screening. Thus, knowing about an individual's breast density provides important information to doctors and screening participants. This study investigated whether an artificial intelligence algorithm (AI) can be used to accurately determine the breast density by analysing mammograms. The study tested whether such an algorithm performs equally well across different imaging devices, and importantly, across individuals from different self-reported race groups. A large, racially diverse dataset was used to evaluate the algorithm's performance. The results show that there were no substantial differences in the accuracy for any of the groups, providing important assurances that AI can be used safely and ethically for automated prediction of breast density.
Asunto(s)
Mama , Neoplasias , Humanos , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , RadiografíaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Femenino , Humanos , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Mamografía/métodos , Mama/patología , Ultrasonografía , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Densidad de la MamaRESUMEN
Supplemental material is available for this article. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Machine Learning © RSNA, 2023.
RESUMEN
The type of nipple discharge dictates the appropriate imaging study. Physiologic nipple discharge is common and does not require diagnostic imaging. Pathologic nipple discharge in women, men, and transgender patients necessitates breast imaging. Evidence-based guidelines were used to evaluate breast imaging modalities for appropriateness based on patient age and gender. For an adult female or male 40 years of age or greater, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is performed initially. Breast ultrasound is usually performed at the same time with rare exception. For males or females 30 to 39 years of age, mammography/DBT or breast ultrasound is performed based on institutional preference and individual patient considerations. For young women less than 30 years of age, ultrasound is performed first with mammography/DBT added if there are suspicious findings or if the patient is at elevated lifetime risk for developing breast cancer. There is a high incidence of breast cancer in males with pathologic discharge. Men 25 years and older should be evaluated using mammography/DBT and ultrasound added when indicted. In transfeminine (male-to-female) patients, mammography/DBT and ultrasound are useful due to the increased incidence of breast cancer. The ACR 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 in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Secreción del Pezón , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Sociedades Médicas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Mamografía , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
Given that 20% to 40% of women who have percutaneous breast biopsy subsequently undergo breast surgery, knowledge of imaging women with a history of benign (including high-risk) disease or breast cancer is important. For women who had surgery for nonmalignant pathology, the surveillance recommendations are determined by their overall risk. Higher-than-average risk women with a history of benign surgery may require screening mammography starting at an earlier age before 40 and may benefit from screening MRI. For women with breast cancer who have undergone initial excision and have positive margins, imaging with diagnostic mammography or MRI can sometimes guide additional surgical planning. Women who have completed breast conservation therapy for cancer should get annual mammography and may benefit from the addition of MRI or ultrasound to their surveillance regimen. The ACR 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 in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamografía , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Sociedades Médicas , Medicina Basada en la EvidenciaRESUMEN
This publication reviews the current evidence supporting the imaging approach of the axilla in various scenarios with broad differential diagnosis ranging from inflammatory to malignant etiologies. Controversies on the management of axillary adenopathy results in disagreement on the appropriate axillary imaging tests. Ultrasound is often the appropriate initial imaging test in several clinical scenarios. Clinical information (such as age, physical examinations, risk factors) and concurrent complete breast evaluation with mammogram, tomosynthesis, or MRI impact the type of initial imaging test for the axilla. Several impactful clinical trials demonstrated that selected patient's population can received sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection with similar overall survival, and axillary lymph node dissection is a safe alternative as the nodal staging procedure for clinically node negative patients or even for some node positive patients with limited nodal tumor burden. This approach is not universally accepted, which adversely affect the type of imaging tests considered appropriate for axilla. This document is focused on the initial imaging of the axilla in various scenarios, with the understanding that concurrent or subsequent additional tests may also be performed for the breast. 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Asunto(s)
Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Sociedades Médicas , Axila/diagnóstico por imagen , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Humanos , Mamografía , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Calidad de Vida , Mamografía/métodos , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Sobrevivientes , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodosRESUMEN
Mammography remains the only validated screening tool for breast cancer, however, there are limitations to mammography. One of the limitations of mammography is the variable sensitivity based on breast density. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient's risk level and breast density. For average-risk women with nondense breasts, the sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is high; additional supplemental screening is not warranted in this population. For average-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, screening ultrasound (US), breast MRI, or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women, there is emerging evidence suggesting that women in this population may benefit from breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhancedmammography or screening US. There is strong evidence supporting screening high-risk women with breast MRI regardless of breast density. Contrast-enhanced mammography, whole breast screening US, or abbreviated breast MRI may be also considered. 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Densidad de la Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Femenino , Humanos , Mamografía , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on the sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones. Insufficient evidence exists to determine whether transgender people undergoing hormone therapy have an overall lower, average, or higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to birth-sex controls. Furthermore, there are no longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer screening in the transgender population. In the absence of definitive data, current evidence is based on data extrapolated from cisgender studies and a limited number of cohort studies and case reports published on the transgender community. 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Personas Transgénero , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Diagnóstico por Imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Background Suppression of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is commonly observed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. It was hypothesized that nonsuppressed BPE may be associated with inferior response to NAC. Purpose To investigate the relationship between lack of BPE suppression and pathologic response. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed for women with menopausal status data who were treated for breast cancer by one of 10 drug arms (standard NAC with or without experimental agents) between May 2010 and November 2016 in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2, or I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Patients underwent MRI at four points: before treatment (T0), early treatment (T1), interregimen (T2), and before surgery (T3). BPE was quantitatively measured by using automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation. To test the hypothesis effectively, a subset of examinations with BPE with high-quality segmentation was selected. BPE change from T0 was defined as suppressed or nonsuppressed for each point. The Fisher exact test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the relationship between BPE suppression and pathologic complete response (pCR) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HR-negative cohorts. Results A total of 3528 MRI scans from 882 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were reviewed and the subset of patients with high-quality BPE segmentation was determined (T1, 433 patients; T2, 396 patients; T3, 380 patients). In the HR-positive cohort, an association between lack of BPE suppression and lower pCR rate was detected at T2 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 11.8% [six of 51] vs 28.9% [50 of 173]; difference, 17.1% [95% CI: 4.7, 29.5]; P = .02) and T3 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 5.3% [two of 38] vs 27.4% [48 of 175]; difference, 22.2% [95% CI: 10.9, 33.5]; P = .003). In the HR-negative cohort, patients with nonsuppressed BPE had lower estimated pCR rate at all points, but the P values for the association were all greater than .05. Conclusions In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Quimioterapia Adyuvante/métodos , Medios de Contraste , Aumento de la Imagen/métodos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Terapia Neoadyuvante/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Adulto , Anciano , Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Mamografía , Tamizaje Masivo , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the upgrade rate of calcified lobular neoplasia (LN) versus incidental noncalcified classic LN found on core needle biopsy performed for the evaluation of suspicious calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included 390 consecutive image-guided breast core needle biopsies with microcalcifications as the target that were performed between December 2009 and July 2017. In 81 of the 390 core biopsies, the highest-risk lesion was LN that then underwent either excision or imaging follow-up. Core biopsy results were compared with excision and imaging follow-up findings. An upgrade of LN was defined as ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive ductal or lobular carcinoma. RESULTS. Of 81 LN diagnosed on core biopsy performed for calcifications, 16 had calcifications within the LN. Fifteen of these 16 cases underwent surgical excision, and three (3/15, 20.0%) were upgraded on excision. Of the 64 core biopsies showing incidental noncalcified LN with benign concordant entities containing calcifications, 42 underwent surgical excision, and one LN (1/42, 2.4%) was upgraded. Twenty-three total lesions (one calcified LN and 22 noncalcified LN) were followed with imaging rather than excision. No cancers were detected among the follow-up group. One case was deemed to have discordant findings on radiologic-pathologic review and was sent for excision, which showed invasive cancer with tubulolobular and lobular features. CONCLUSION. Women undergoing stereotactic core needle biopsy for calcifications revealing noncalcified incidental classic LN and a benign concordant entity that could explain the presence of the target calcifications have a low risk of upgrade and may be followed with imaging. Surgical excision should be offered to women who have LN with calcifications.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Calcinosis/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Lobular/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Lobular/patología , Mamografía/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Biopsia con Aguja Gruesa , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Mama/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Hallazgos Incidentales , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the best management option (surgical excision versus imaging surveillance) following the diagnosis of pure radial scars (RSs) and RSs with associated additional high-risk lesions (HRLs) encountered on percutaneous core-needle breast biopsy. METHODS: An IRB-approved retrospective review of the breast imaging reporting system database was performed to identify all cases of pure RS alone or RS plus an additional HRL (papilloma, atypia, lobular neoplasia) diagnosed on core-needle biopsy, from 2007 to 2016, at four breast centers in our institution. Cases with associated malignancy, discordant radiologic-pathologic results, or those lost to follow-up were excluded. The remaining cases were evaluated to determine results of either subsequent surgical excision or long-term follow-up imaging (minimum of two years). Additional data recorded included clinical presentation, breast density, personal and family history of breast cancer, lesion imaging characteristics, and biopsy method. RESULTS: The study cohort included 111 patients with 111 lesions: 56.8% (63/111) with RS alone (pure) and 43.2% (48/111) with RS plus additional HRL(s). Out of the 63 radiologic-pathologic concordant pure RSs, there were no upgrades to malignancy in 51 subsequent surgical excisions or 12 long-term surveillance cases (0/63, 0%). Out of the 48 RSs plus additional HRL(s), there were 2 upgrades to malignancy (2/48, 4.2%). CONCLUSION: Cases of radiologic-pathologic concordant pure RS diagnosed at core-needle biopsy do not require surgical excision. On the other hand, surgical excision should be considered for RS plus additional HRLs diagnosed at core-needle biopsy.
RESUMEN
Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI provides both morphological and functional information regarding breast tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The purpose of this retrospective study is to test if prediction models combining multiple MRI features outperform models with single features. Four features were quantitatively calculated in each MRI exam: functional tumor volume, longest diameter, sphericity, and contralateral background parenchymal enhancement. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the relationship between MRI variables and pathologic complete response (pCR). Predictive performance was estimated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The full cohort was stratified by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (positive or negative). A total of 384 patients (median age: 49 y/o) were included. Results showed analysis with combined features achieved higher AUCs than analysis with any feature alone. AUCs estimated for the combined versus highest AUCs among single features were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.86) versus 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.85) in the full cohort, 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.92) versus 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.84) in HR-positive/HER2-negative, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.97) versus 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.89) in HR-positive/HER2-positive, 0.83 (95% CI not available) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.81) in HR-negative/HER2-positive, and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.91) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.83) in triple negatives. Multi-feature MRI analysis improved pCR prediction over analysis of any individual feature that we examined. Additionally, the improvements in prediction were more notable when analysis was conducted according to cancer subtype.