Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale. METHODS: In this international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5-10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4-6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of non-inferiority (considering a margin of 0·05) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if non-inferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341. FINDINGS: Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·87-0·94; p<0·0001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 0·86 (0·83-0·89), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 0·02. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6·8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57·7%, 95% CI 51·6-63·3), or 50·4% fewer false-positive results and 20·0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89·4%, 95% CI 85·3-92·9). In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non-inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (68·9% [95% CI 65·3-72·4] vs 69·0% [65·5-72·5]) at the same sensitivity (96·1%, 94·0-98·2) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (-0·04) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-0·05) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system. FUNDING: Health~Holland and EU Horizon 2020.

Opportunities for personalised follow-up in breast cancer: the gap between daily practice and recurrence risk.

PURPOSE: Follow-up guidelines barely diverge from a one-size-fits-all approach, even though the risk of recurrence differs per patient. However, the personalization of breast cancer care improves outcomes for patients. This study explores the variation in follow-up pathways in the Netherlands using real-world data to determine guideline adherence and the gap between daily practice and risk-based surveillance, to demonstrate the benefits of personalized risk-based surveillance compared with usual care. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III invasive breast cancer who received surgical treatment in a general hospital between 2005 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and included all imaging activities during follow-up from hospital-based electronic health records. Process analysis techniques were used to map patients and activities to investigate the real-world utilisation of resources and identify the opportunities for improvement. The INFLUENCE 2.0 nomogram was used for risk prediction of recurrence. RESULTS: In the period between 2005 and 2020, 3478 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. In the first 12 months following treatment, patients visited the hospital between 1 and 5 times (mean 1.3, IQR 1-1) and received between 1 and 9 imaging activities (mean 1.7, IQR 1-2). Mammogram was the prevailing imaging modality, accounting for 70% of imaging activities. Patients with a low predicted risk of recurrence visited the hospital more often. CONCLUSIONS: Deviations from the guideline were not in line with the risk of recurrence and revealed a large gap, indicating that it is hard for clinicians to accurately estimate this risk and therefore objective risk predictions could bridge this gap.

Preoperative breast MRI positively impacts surgical outcomes of needle biopsy-diagnosed pure DCIS: a patient-matched analysis from the MIPA study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of preoperative breast MRI on mastectomy and reoperation rates in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: The MIPA observational study database (7245 patients) was searched for patients aged 18-80 years with pure unilateral DCIS diagnosed at core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy (CNB/VAB) and planned for primary surgery. Patients who underwent preoperative MRI (MRI group) were matched (1:1) to those who did not receive MRI (noMRI group) according to 8 confounding covariates that drive referral to MRI (age; hormonal status; familial risk; posterior-to-nipple diameter; BI-RADS category; lesion diameter; lesion presentation; surgical planning at conventional imaging). Surgical outcomes were compared between the matched groups with nonparametric statistics after calculating odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of 1005 women with pure unilateral DCIS at CNB/VAB (507 MRI group, 498 noMRI group), 309 remained in each group after matching. First-line mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 20.1% (62/309 patients, OR 2.03) compared to 11.0% in the noMRI group (34/309 patients, p = 0.003). The reoperation rate was 10.0% in the MRI group (31/309, OR for reoperation 0.40) and 22.0% in the noMRI group (68/309, p < 0.001), with a 2.53 OR of avoiding reoperation in the MRI group. The overall mastectomy rate was 23.3% in the MRI group (72/309, OR 1.40) and 17.8% in the noMRI group (55/309, p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those going directly to surgery, patients with pure DCIS at CNB/VAB who underwent preoperative MRI had a higher OR for first-line mastectomy but a substantially lower OR for reoperation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When confounding factors behind MRI referral are accounted for in the comparison of patients with CNB/VAB-diagnosed pure unilateral DCIS, preoperative MRI yields a reduction of reoperations that is more than twice as high as the increase in overall mastectomies. KEY POINTS: • Confounding factors cause imbalance when investigating the influence of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes of pure DCIS. • When patient matching is applied to women with pure unilateral DCIS, reoperation rates are significantly reduced in women who underwent preoperative MRI. • The reduction of reoperations brought about by preoperative MRI is more than double the increase in overall mastectomies.

Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study.

OBJECTIVES: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. METHODS: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups.

Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regular follow-up after treatment for breast cancer is crucial to detect potential recurrences and second contralateral breast cancer in an early stage. However, information about follow-up patterns in the Netherlands is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Details concerning diagnostic procedures and policlinic visits in the first 5 years following a breast cancer diagnosis were gathered between 2009 and 2019 for 9916 patients from 4 large Dutch hospitals. This information was used to analyze the adherence of breast cancer surveillance to guidelines in the Netherlands. Multivariable logistic regression was used to relate the average number of a patient's imaging procedures to their demographics, tumor-treatment characteristics, and individual locoregional recurrence risk (LRR), estimated by a risk-prediction tool, called INFLUENCE. RESULTS: The average number of policlinic contacts per patient decreased from 4.4 in the first to 2.0 in the fifth follow-up year. In each of the 5 follow-up years, the share of patients without imaging procedures was relatively high, ranging between 31.4% and 33.6%. Observed guidelines deviations were highly significant (P < .001). A higher age, lower UICC stage, and having undergone radio- or chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher chance of receiving an imaging procedure. The estimated average LRR-risk was 3.5% in patients without any follow-up imaging compared with 2.3% in patients with the recommended number of 5 imagings. CONCLUSION: Compared to guidelines, more policlinic visits were made, although at inadequate intervals, and fewer imaging procedures were performed. The frequency of imaging procedures did not correlate with the patients' individual risk profiles for LRR.

Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.

BACKGROUND: Extremely dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography. Data are needed on the use of supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve early detection and reduce interval breast cancers in such patients. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the Netherlands, we assigned 40,373 women between the ages of 50 and 75 years with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only. The groups were assigned in a 1:4 ratio, with 8061 in the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the incidence of interval cancers during a 2-year screening period. RESULTS: The interval-cancer rate was 2.5 per 1000 screenings in the MRI-invitation group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000 screenings (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 3.7; P<0.001). Of the women who were invited to undergo MRI, 59% accepted the invitation. Of the 20 interval cancers that were diagnosed in the MRI-invitation group, 4 were diagnosed in the women who actually underwent MRI (0.8 per 1000 screenings) and 16 in those who did not accept the invitation (4.9 per 1000 screenings). The MRI cancer-detection rate among the women who actually underwent MRI screening was 16.5 per 1000 screenings (95% CI, 13.3 to 20.5). The positive predictive value was 17.4% (95% CI, 14.2 to 21.2) for recall for additional testing and 26.3% (95% CI, 21.7 to 31.6) for biopsy. The false positive rate was 79.8 per 1000 screenings. Among the women who underwent MRI, 0.1% had either an adverse event or a serious adverse event during or immediately after the screening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of supplemental MRI screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period. (Funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht and others; DENSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01315015.).

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making.

Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations Focused on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: The Tortoise and the Cheetah.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon >1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items. CONCLUSIONS: HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, model-based long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments.

Reducing False-Positive Screening MRI Rate in Women with Extremely Dense Breasts Using Prediction Models Based on Data from the DENSE Trial.

Background High breast density increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammographic sensitivity. Supplemental MRI screening improves cancer detection but increases the number of false-positive screenings. Thus, methods to distinguish true-positive MRI screening results from false-positive ones are needed. Purpose To build prediction models based on clinical characteristics and MRI findings to reduce the rate of false-positive screening MRI findings in women with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods Clinical characteristics and MRI findings in Dutch breast cancer screening participants (age range, 50-75 years) with positive first-round MRI screening results (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, or 5) after a normal screening mammography with extremely dense breasts (Volpara density category 4) were prospectively collected within the randomized controlled Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial from December 2011 through November 2015. In this secondary analysis, prediction models were built using multivariable logistic regression analysis to distinguish true-positive MRI screening findings from false-positive ones. Results Among 454 women (median age, 52 years; interquartile range, 50-57 years) with a positive MRI result in a first supplemental MRI screening round, 79 were diagnosed with breast cancer (true-positive findings), and 375 had false-positive MRI results. The full prediction model (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.92), based on all collected clinical characteristics and MRI findings, could have prevented 45.5% (95% CI: 39.6, 51.5) of false-positive recalls and 21.3% (95% CI: 15.7, 28.3) of benign biopsies without missing any cancers. The model solely based on readily available MRI findings and age had a comparable performance (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.88; P = .15) and could have prevented 35.5% (95% CI: 30.4, 41.1) of false-positive MRI screening results and 13.0% (95% CI: 8.8, 18.6) of benign biopsies. Conclusion Prediction models based on clinical characteristics and MRI findings may be useful to reduce the false-positive first-round screening MRI rate and benign biopsy rate in women with extremely dense breasts. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01315015 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Imbriaco in this issue.

Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial.

Background In the first (prevalent) supplemental MRI screening round of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, a considerable number of breast cancers were found at the cost of an increased false-positive rate (FPR). In incident screening rounds, a lower cancer detection rate (CDR) is expected due to a smaller pool of prevalent cancers, and a reduced FPR, due to the availability of prior MRI examinations. Purpose To investigate screening performance indicators of the second round (incidence round) of the DENSE trial. Materials and Methods The DENSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315015) is embedded within the Dutch population-based biennial mammography screening program for women aged 50-75 years. MRI examinations were performed between December 2011 and January 2016. Women were eligible for the second round when they again had a negative screening mammogram 2 years after their first MRI. The recall rate, biopsy rate, CDR, FPR, positive predictive values, and distributions of tumor characteristics were calculated and compared with results of the first round using 95% CIs and χ2 tests. Results A total of 3436 women (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 48-64 years) underwent a second MRI screening. The CDR was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 3.8, 9.0) compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 13.3, 20.5) in the first round. The FPR was 26.3 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 21.5, 32.3) in the second round versus 79.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 72.4, 87.9) in the first round. The positive predictive value for recall was 18% (20 of 110 participants recalled; 95% CI: 12.1, 26.4), and the positive predictive value for biopsy was 24% (20 of 84 participants who underwent biopsy; 95% CI: 16.0, 33.9), both comparable to that of the first round. All tumors in the second round were stage 0-I and node negative. Conclusion The incremental cancer detection rate in the second round was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations-compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations in the first round. This was accompanied by a strong reduction in the number of false-positive results. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.

ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement ≥ 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of ≤ 15% of the panellists. For the other questions, a consensus was considered with ≥ 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: • Multi-parametric MRI in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer has a well-established upfront role in the recently updated European Association of Urology guideline and American Urological Association recommendations. • Suboptimal image acquisition and reporting at an individual level will result in clinicians losing confidence in the technique and returning to the (non-MRI) systematic biopsy pathway. Therefore, it is crucial to establish quality criteria for the acquisition and reporting of mpMRI. • To ensure high-quality prostate MRI, experts consider checking and reporting of image quality mandatory. Prostate radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular self- and external performance assessments.

Solving the preoperative breast MRI conundrum: design and protocol of the MIPA study.

Despite its high diagnostic performance, the use of breast MRI in the preoperative setting is controversial. It has the potential for personalized surgical management in breast cancer patients, but two of three randomized controlled trials did not show results in favor of its introduction for assessing the disease extent before surgery. Meta-analyses showed a higher mastectomy rate in women undergoing preoperative MRI compared to those who do not. Nevertheless, preoperative breast MRI is increasingly used and a survey from the American Society of Breast Surgeons showed that 41% of respondents ask for it in daily practice. In this context, a large-scale observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA study) was proposed under the guidance of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). The aims were (1) to prospectively and systematically collect data on consecutive women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer, not candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, who are offered or not offered breast MRI before surgery according to local practice; (2) to compare these two groups in terms of surgical and clinical endpoints, adjusting for covariates. The underlying hypotheses are that MRI does not cause additional mastectomies compared to conventional imaging, while reducing the reoperation rate in all or in subgroups of patients. Ninety-six centers applied to a web-based call; 36 were initially selected based on volume and quality standards; 27 were active for enrollment. On November 2018, the target of 7000 enrolled patients was reached. The MIPA study is presently at the analytic phase. Key Points • Breast MRI has a high diagnostic performance but its utility in the preoperative setting is controversial. • A large-scale observational multicenter prospective study was launched to compare women receiving with those not receiving preoperative MRI. • Twenty-seven centers enrolled more than 7000 patients. The study is presently at the analytic phase.

Applying Risk-Based Follow-Up Strategies on the Dutch Breast Cancer Population: Consequences for Care and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: An important aim of follow-up after primary breast cancer treatment is early detection of locoregional recurrences (LRR). This study compares 2 personalized follow-up scheme simulations based on LRR risk predictions provided by a time-dependent prognostic model for breast cancer LRR and quantifies their possible follow-up efficiency. METHODS: Surgically treated early patients with breast cancer between 2003 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The INFLUENCE nomogram was used to estimate the 5-year annual LRR. Applying 2 thresholds, they were defined according to Youden's J-statistic and a predefined follow-up sensitivity of 95%, respectively. These patient's risk estimations served as the basis for scheduling follow-up visits; 2 personalized follow-up schemes were simulated. The number of potentially saved follow-up visits and corresponding cost savings for each follow-up scheme were compared with the current Dutch breast cancer guideline recommendation and the observed utilization of follow-up on a training and testing cohort. RESULTS: Using LRR risk-predictions for 30 379 Dutch patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2006 (training cohort), 2 thresholds were calculated. The threshold according to Youden's approach yielded a follow-up sensitivity of 62.5% and a potential saving of 62.1% of follow-up visits and €24.8 million in 5 years. When the threshold corresponding to 95% follow-up sensitivity was used, 17% of follow-up visits and €7 million were saved compared with the guidelines. Similar results were obtained by applying these thresholds to the testing cohort of 11 462 patients from 2007 to 2008. Compared with the observed utilization of follow-up, the potential cost-savings decline moderately. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized follow-up schemes based on the INFLUENCE nomogram's individual risk estimations for breast cancer LRR could decrease the number of follow-up visits if one accepts a limited risk of delayed LRR detection.

Optoacoustic imaging of the breast: correlation with histopathology and histopathologic biomarkers.

AIM: This study was conducted in order to investigate the role of gray-scale ultrasound (US) and optoacoustic imaging combined with gray-scale ultrasound (OA/US) to better differentiate between breast cancer molecular subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 67 malignant masses included in the Maestro trial were retrospectively reviewed to compare US and OA/US feature scores and histopathological findings. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the relationship between US and OA/US features and molecular subtypes of breast cancer. If a significant relationship was found, additional Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to identify the differences between molecular subtype groups. RESULTS: US sound transmission helped to differentiate between LUMA and LUMB, LUMB and TNBC, and LUMB and all other molecular subtypes combined (p values < 0.05). Regarding OA/US features, the sum of internal features helped to differentiate between TNBC and HER2-enriched subtypes (p = 0.049). Internal vessels (p = 0.025), sum of all internal features (p = 0.019), and sum of internal and external features (p = 0.028) helped to differentiate between LUMA and LUMB. All internal features, the sum of all internal features, the sum of all internal and external features, and the ratio of internal and external features helped to differentiate between LUMA and TNBC. The same features also helped to differentiate between LUMA and TNBC from other molecular subtypes (p values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of OA/US might help radiologists to better differentiate between breast cancer molecular subtypes. Further studies need to be carried out in order to validate these results. KEY POINTS: • The combination of functional and morphologic information provided by optoacoustic imaging (OA) combined with gray-scale US helped to differentiate between breast cancer molecular subtypes.

Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging.

Purpose To assess the ability of optoacoustic (OA) ultrasonography (US) to help correctly downgrade benign masses classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4a and 4b to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Materials and Methods OA/US technology uses laser light to detect relative amounts of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin in and around suspicious breast masses. In this prospective, multicenter study, results of 209 patients with 215 breast masses classified as BI-RADS 4a or 4b at US are reported. Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2016. Masses were first evaluated with US with knowledge of previous clinical information and imaging results, and from this information a US imaging-based probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category were assigned to each mass. The same masses were then re-evaluated at OA/US. During the OA/US evaluation, radiologists scored five OA/US features, and then reassigned an OA/US-based POM and BI-RADS category for each mass. BI-RADS downgrade and upgrade percentages at OA/US were assessed by using a weighted sum of the five OA feature scores. Results At OA/US, 47.9% (57 of 119; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57) of benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a and 11.1% (three of 27; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.28) of masses classified as BI-RADS 4b were correctly downgraded to BI-RADS 3 or 2. Two of seven malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4a at US were incorrectly downgraded, and one of 60 malignant masses classified as BI-RADS 4b at US was incorrectly downgraded for a total of 4.5% (three of 67; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.13) false-negative findings. Conclusion At OA/US, benign masses classified as BI-RADS 4a could be downgraded in BI-RADS category, which would potentially decrease biopsies negative for cancer and short-interval follow-up examinations, with the limitation that a few masses may be inappropriately downgraded.

MR Imaging as an Additional Screening Modality for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Women Aged 50-75 Years with Extremely Dense Breasts: The DENSE Trial Study Design.

Women with extremely dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer and lower mammographic tumor detectability. Nevertheless, in most countries, these women are currently screened with mammography only. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has the potential to improve breast cancer detection at an early stage because of its higher sensitivity. However, MR imaging is more expensive and is expected to be accompanied by an increase in the number of false-positive results and, possibly, an increase in overdiagnosis. To study the additional value of MR imaging, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design is needed in which one group undergoes mammography and the other group undergoes mammography and MR imaging. With this design, it is possible to determine the proportion of interval cancers within each study arm. For this to be an effective screening strategy, the additional cancers detected at MR imaging screening must be accompanied by a subsequent reduction in interval cancers. The Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening, or DENSE, trial is a multicenter RCT performed in the Dutch biennial population-based screening program (subject age range, 50-75 years). The study was approved by the Dutch Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. In this study, mammographic density is measured by using a fully automated volumetric method. Participants with extremely dense breasts (American College of Radiology breast density category 4) and a negative result at mammography (Breast Imaging Recording and Data System category 1 or 2) are randomly assigned to undergo additional MR imaging (n = 7237) or to be treated according to current practice (n = 28 948). Participants provide written informed consent before the MR imaging examination, which consists of dynamic breast MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast medium and is intended to be performed for three consecutive screening rounds. The primary outcome is the difference in the proportions of interval cancers between the study arms. Secondary outcomes are the number of MR imaging screening-detected cancers, proportions of false-positive results, diagnostic yield of MR imaging, tumor characteristics, quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the in-hospital diagnostic pathway of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a temporary halt of population screening for cancer and limited hospital capacity for non-COVID care. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on the in-hospital diagnostic pathway of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: 71,159 BC and 48,900 CRC patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients, diagnosed between January 2020 and July 2021, were divided into six periods and compared to the average of patients diagnosed in the same periods in 2017-2019. Diagnostic procedures performed were analysed using logistic regression. Lead time of the diagnostic pathway was analysed using Cox regression. Analyses were stratified for cancer type and corrected for age, sex (only CRC), stage and region. RESULTS: For BC, less mammograms were performed during the first recovery period in 2020. More PET-CTs were performed during the first peak, first recovery and third peak period. For CRC, less ultrasounds and more CT scans and MRIs were performed during the first peak. Lead time decreased the most during the first peak by 2 days (BC) and 8 days (CRC). Significantly fewer patients, mainly in lower stages, were diagnosed with BC (-47%) and CRC (-36%) during the first peak. CONCLUSION: Significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was found on the diagnostic pathway, mainly during the first peak. In 2021, care returned to the same standards as before the pandemic. Long-term effects on patient outcomes are not known yet and will be the subject of future research.

Evaluating Biparametric Versus Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: An International, Paired, Noninferiority, Confirmatory Observer Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis. METHODS: An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3-5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0-100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819-0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826-0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8-92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8-93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes.