Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI in the Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is rapidly expanding as a credible alternative to MRI in various clinical settings. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CEM and MRI for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) response assessment in patients with breast cancer. METHODS. This prospective study included 51 patients (mean age, 46 ± 11 [SD] years) with biopsy-proven breast cancer who were candidates for NAT from May 2015 to April 2018. Patients underwent both CEM and MRI before, during, and after NAT (pre-NAT, mid-NAT, and post-NAT, respectively). Post-NAT CEM included a 6-minute delayed acquisition. One breast radiologist with experience in CEM reviewed CEM examinations; one breast radiologist with experience in MRI reviewed MRI examinations. The radiologists assessed for the presence of an enhancing lesion; if an enhancing lesion was detected, its size was measured. RECIST version 1.1 response assessment categories were derived. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of both invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). RESULTS. Of 51 patients, 16 achieved pCR. CEM yielded systematically lower size measurements compared with MRI (mean difference, -0.2 mm for pre-NAT, -0.7 mm for mid-NAT, and -0.3 mm for post-NAT). All post-NAT imaging tests yielded systematically larger size measurements compared with pathology (mean difference, 0.8 mm for CEM, 1.2 mm for MRI, and 1.9 mm for delayed CEM). Of 12 patients with residual DCIS, an enhancing lesion was detected in seven on post-NAT CEM, eight on post-NAT MRI, and nine on post-NAT delayed CEM. Agreement of RECIST response categories between CEM and MRI, expressed as kappa coefficient, was 0.791 at mid-NAT and 0.871 at post-NAT. For detecting pCR by post-NAT imaging, sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 83% for CEM, 100% and 86% for MRI, and 81% and 89% for delayed CEM. Sensitivity was significantly higher for MRI than CEM (p = .001) and delayed CEM (p = .002); remaining comparisons were not significant (p > .05). CONCLUSION. After NAT for breast cancer, CEM and MRI yielded comparable assessments of lesion size (both slightly overestimated vs pathology) and RECIST categories and showed no significant difference in specificity for pCR. MRI had higher sensitivity for pCR. Delayed CEM acquisition may help detect residual DCIS. CLINICAL IMPACT. Although MRI remains the preferred test for NAT response monitoring, the findings support CEM as a useful alternative when MRI is contraindicated or not tolerated.

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.

Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.

Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) provides recommendations for breast care provision and procedural prioritization during COVID-19 pandemic, being aware that medical decisions must be currently taken balancing patient's individual and community safety: (1) patients having a scheduled or to-be-scheduled appointment for in-depth diagnostic breast imaging or needle biopsy should confirm the appointment or obtain a new one; (2) patients who have suspicious symptoms of breast cancer (in particular: new onset palpable nodule; skin or nipple retraction; orange peel skin; unilateral secretion from the nipple) should request non-deferrable tests at radiology services; (3) asymptomatic women performing annual mammographic follow-up after breast cancer treatment should preferably schedule the appointment within 1 year and 3 months from the previous check, compatibly with the local organizational conditions; (4) asymptomatic women who have not responded to the invitation for screening mammography after the onset of the pandemic or have been informed of the suspension of the screening activity should schedule the check preferably within 3 months from the date of the not performed check, compatibly with local organizational conditions. The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM recommends precautions to protect both patients and healthcare workers (radiologists, radiographers, nurses, and reception staff) from infection or disease spread on the occasion of breast imaging procedures, particularly mammography, breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and breast intervention procedures.

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.

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as "high-risk" or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. TEACHING POINTS: • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. KEY POINTS: • Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. • Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). • A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation.

Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Mammography and MRI for screening women who underwent chest radiation therapy (lymphoma survivors): recommendations for surveillance from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.

Women who underwent chest radiation therapy (CRT) during pediatric/young-adult age (typically, lymphoma survivors) have an increased breast cancer risk, in particular for high doses. The cumulative incidence from 40 to 45 years of age is 13-20 %, similar to that of BRCA mutation carriers for whom contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended. However, in women who underwent CRT, MRI sensitivity is lower (63-80 %) and that of mammography higher (67-70 %) than those observed in women with hereditary predisposition, due to a higher incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ with microcalcifications and low neoangiogenesis. A sensitivity close to 95 % can be obtained only using mammography as an adjunct to MRI. Considering the available evidence, women who underwent CRT before 30 receiving a cumulative dose ≥10 Gy should be invited after 25 (or, at least, 8 years after CRT) to attend the following program: 1. interview about individual risk profile and potential of breast imaging; 2. annual MRI using the same protocol recommended for women with hereditary predisposition; 3. annual bilateral two-view full-field digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with synthetic 2D reconstructions. Mammography and MRI can be performed at once or alternately every 6 months. In the case of MRI or contrast material contraindications, ultrasound will be performed instead of MRI. Reporting using BI-RADS is recommended. At the age for entering population screening, the individual risk profile will be discussed with the woman about opting for only mammography/DBT screening or for continuing the intensive protocol.

Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM+DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. METHODS: Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or ≥ 1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM+DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen κ and χ(2) were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. RESULTS: We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM+DBT (κ=0.459 versus κ=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p=0.992). CONCLUSION: DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement.

Gadobutrol-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast in the Preoperative Setting: Results of 2 Prospective International Multicenter Phase III Studies.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of gadobutrol enhanced preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 2 prospective studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval of ethics committees and informed consent from patients were obtained. Both Gadobutrol-Enhanced MR Mammography (GEMMA) trials followed a standardized protocol using 1.5 T scanners. After unenhanced scans, patients received 0.1 mmol/kg of gadobutrol for the dynamic study. Six independent blinded readers, 3 for GEMMA1 and 3 for GEMMA2, assessed unenhanced images and, 2 or more weeks apart, contrast-enhanced plus unenhanced breast MRI images (CE-BMRI), using a standard 5-region scheme. Another 6 independent readers (3 for each study) evaluated mammograms alone. Sensitivity was calculated taking into account the identification of regions harboring malignancies (within-patient sensitivity), whereas specificity was based on cancer-free breasts. The first patient from each center was used for site qualification and blinded reader training and excluded from the efficacy analyses. Reference standard was pathology for regions harboring malignancy and a combination of negative pathology, mammography, and ultrasound for cancer-free regions. RESULTS: Of 906 breast cancer patients enrolled in 13 countries in the 2 studies, 865 received gadobutrol and 787 were evaluated for diagnostic performance (390 in GEMMA1 and 397 in GEMMA2). Within-patient sensitivity, that is, the detection rate of malignant disease extent per patient, ranged from 80% to 89% for CE-BMRI and was significantly superior to unenhanced breast MRI alone (37%-73%) and to mammography alone (68%-73%) for all readers in both trials. Specifity of the CE-BMRI ranged from 83% to 95%. CONCLUSION: In a very large multicenter preoperative setting, gadobutrol-enhanced breast MRI demonstrated high levels of sensitivity and specificity, consistent with published data on breast MRI.

Triple-Negative versus Non-Triple-Negative Breast Cancers in High-Risk Women: Phenotype Features and Survival from the HIBCRIT-1 MRI-Including Screening Study.

PURPOSE: To compare phenotype features and survival of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) versus non-TNBCs detected during a multimodal annual screening of high-risk women. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Analysis of data from asymptomatic high-risk women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during the HIBCRIT-1 study with median 9.7-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of 501 enrolled women with BRCA1/2 mutation or strong family history (SFH), 44 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancers: 20 BRCA1 (45%), 9 BRCA2 (21%), 15 SFH (34%). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sensitivity (90%) outperformed that of mammography (43%, P < 0.001) and ultrasonography (61%, P = 0.004). The 44 cases (41 screen-detected; 3 BRCA1-associated interval TNBCs) comprised 14 TNBCs (32%) and 30 non-TNBCs (68%), without significant differences for age at diagnosis, menopausal status, prophylactic oophorectomy, or previous breast cancer. Of 14 TNBC patients, 11 (79%) were BRCA1; of the 20 BRCA1 patients, 11 (55%) had TNBC; and of 15 SFH patients, 14 (93%) had non-TNBCs (P = 0.007). Invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) were 86% for TNBCs versus 43% for non-TNBCs (P = 0.010), G3 IDCs 71% versus 23% (P = 0.006), size 16 ± 5 mm versus 12 ± 6 mm (P = 0.007). TNBC patients had more frequent ipsilateral mastectomy (79% vs. 43% for non-TNBCs, P = 0.050), contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (43% vs. 10%, P = 0.019), and adjuvant chemotherapy (100% vs. 44%, P < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival was 86% ± 9% for TNBCs versus 93% ± 5% (P = 0.946) for non-TNBCs; 5-year disease-free survival was 77% ± 12% versus 76% ± 8% (P = 0.216). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk women, by combining an MRI-including annual screening with adequate treatment, the usual reported gap in outcome between TNBCs and non-TNBCs could be reduced.

Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. RESULTS: While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831). CONCLUSIONS: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation. KEY POINTS: Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.

Breast cancer detection using double reading of unenhanced MRI including T1-weighted, T2-weighted STIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging: a proof of concept study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of unenhanced MRI in detecting breast cancer and to assess the impact of double reading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 116 breasts of 67 women who were 36-89 years old were studied at 1.5 T using an unenhanced protocol including axial T1-weighted gradient-echo, T2-weighted STIR, and echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Two blinded readers (R1 and R2) independently evaluated unenhanced images using the BIRADS scale. A combination of pathology and negative follow-up served as the reference standard. McNemar and kappa statistics were used. RESULTS: Per-breast cancer prevalence was 37 of 116 (32%): 30 of 37 (81%) invasive ductal carcinoma, five of 37 (13%) ductal carcinoma in situ, and two of 37 (6%) invasive lobular carcinoma. Per-breast sensitivity of unenhanced MRI was 29 of 37 (78%) for R1, 28 of 37 (76%) for R2, and 29 of 37 (78%) for double reading. Specificity was 71 of 79 (90%) for both R1 and R2 and 69 of 79 (87%) for double reading. Double reading did not provide a significant increase in sensitivity. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect (Cohen κ = 0.873). CONCLUSION: An unenhanced breast MRI protocol composed of T1-weighted gradient echo, T2-weighted STIR, and echo-planar DWI enabled breast cancer detection with sensitivity of 76-78% and specificity of 90% without a gain in sensitivity from double reading.

MRI of fat necrosis of the breast: the "black hole" sign at short tau inversion recovery.

OBJECTIVE: To describe MRI features of fat necrosis of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five lesions in 16 patients were retrospectively analyzed. MRI was performed due to equivocal findings at conventional imaging after surgical treatment of cancer (n=14) or during anticoagulant therapy (n=1), after focal mastitis treated with ductal resection (n=1). In the 15 patients with previous surgery MRI was performed after a median interval of 24 months, using short tau inversion recovery (STIR) and contrast-enhanced dynamic T1-weighted sequences. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inside the lesion and surrounding healthy fat was calculated on both STIR and unenhanced T1-weighted images. Maximal lesion diameter was measured on STIR images. All lesions had final clinical and imaging assessment in favor of fat necrosis and negative clinical and imaging follow-up (21-40 months; median 24 months). RESULTS: At STIR sequence, fat necrosis appeared as a "black hole", being markedly hypointense (median SNR=29) compared with surrounding fat (median SNR=95) (P<0.001), while no significant difference was found at unenhanced T1-weighted sequence. No significant correlation with time from treatment was found. Of 25 lesions, 15 showed ring enhancement, with continuous increase (n=10), plateau (n=2), or wash-out curve (n=3). The 11 enhancing lesions in the 8 patients with previous radiation therapy showed an initial enhancement higher than that of the 4 enhancing lesions in the 2 patients who did not, although the difference was not significant (P=0.104). CONCLUSION: Fat necrosis of the breast exhibits a "black hole" sign on STIR images, allowing for an easier diagnosis in clinical practice.