Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) is being rapidly adopted to harness the high sensitivity of screening MRI while addressing issues related to access, cost, and workflow. The successful implementation of an AB-MRI program requires collaboration across administrative, operational, financial, technical, and clinical providers. Institutions must be thoughtful in defining patient eligibility for AB-MRI and providing recommendations for screening intervals, as existing practices are heterogeneous. Similarly, there is no universally accepted AB-MRI protocol, though guiding principles should harmonize abbreviated and full protocols while being mindful of scan duration and amount of time patients spend on the MRI table. The interpretation of AB-MRI will be a new experience for many radiologists and may require a phased rollout and a careful audit of performance metrics over time to ensure benchmark metrics are achieved. AB-MRI finances, which are driven by patient self-payment, will require buy-in from hospital administration with the recognition that downstream revenues will be needed to support initial costs. Finally, successful startup of an AB-MRI program requires active engagement with the larger community of patients and referring providers. As AB-MRI becomes more widely accepted and available, best practices and community standards will continue to evolve to ensure high-quality patient care.

Abbreviated Breast MRI Utilization: A Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To survey Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) membership on their use of abbreviated breast MRI to understand variability in practice patterns. METHODS: A survey was developed by the SBI Patient Care and Delivery committee for distribution to SBI membership in July and August 2021. Eighteen questions queried practice demographics and then abbreviated breast MRI practices regarding initial adoption, scheduling and finances, MRI protocols, and interpretations. Comparisons between responses were made by practice demographics. RESULTS: There were 321 respondents (response rate: 15.3%), of whom 25% (81/321) currently offer and 26% (84/321) plan to offer abbreviated breast MRI. Practices in the South (37/107, 35%) and Midwest (22/70, 31%) were more likely to offer abbreviated MRI (P = 0.005). Practices adopted many strategies to raise awareness, most directed at referring providers. The mean charge to patients was $414, and only 6% of practices offer financial support. The median time slot for studies is 20 minutes, with only 15% of practices using block scheduling of consecutive breast MRIs. Regarding MRI protocols, 64% (37/58) of respondents included only a single first-pass post-contrast sequence, and 90% (52/58) included T2-weighted sequences. Patient eligibility was highly varied, and a majority of respondents (37/58, 64%) do not provide any recommendations for screening intervals in non-high-risk women. CONCLUSION: Abbreviated breast MRI utilization is growing rapidly, and practices are applying a variety of strategies to facilitate adoption. Although there is notable variability in patient eligibility, follow-up intervals, and costs, there is some agreement regarding abbreviated breast MRI protocols.

False-Negative Rates of Breast Cancer Screening with and without Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Background Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer detection and recall rates compared with those obtained with digital mammography (DM); however, the impact of DBT on patient survival has not been established. False-negative (FN) screening examinations can be a surrogate for long-term outcomes, such as breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Purpose To determine if screening with DBT is associated with lower FN rates, detection of cancers with more favorable prognoses, and improved performance outcomes versus DM. Materials and Methods This retrospective study involved 10 academic and community practices. DM screening examinations 1 year prior to DBT implementation and DBT screening examinations from the start date until June 30, 2013, were linked to cancers through June 30, 2014, with data collection in 2016 and analysis in 2018-2019. Cancers after FN examinations were characterized by presentation, either symptomatic or asymptomatic. FN rates, sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection and recall rates, positive predictive values, tumor size, histologic features, and receptor profile were compared. Results A total of 380 641 screening examinations were included. There were 183 989 DBT and 196 652 DM examinations. With DBT, rates trended lower for overall FN examinations (DBT, 0.6 per 1000 screens; DM, 0.7 per 1000 screens; P = .20) and symptomatic FN examinations (DBT, 0.4 per 1000 screens; DM, 0.5 per 1000 screens; P = .21). Asymptomatic FN rates trended higher in women with dense breasts (DBT, 0.14 per 1000 screens; DM: 0.07 per 1000 screens; P = .07). With DBT, improved sensitivity (DBT, 89.8% [966 of 1076 cancers]; DM, 85.6% [789 of 922 cancers]; P = .004) and specificity (DBT, 90.7% [165 830 of 182 913 examinations]; DM, 89.1% [174 480 of 195 730 examinations]; P < .001) were observed. Overall, cancers identified with DBT were more frequently invasive (P < .001), had fewer positive lymph nodes (P = .04) and distant metastases (P = .01), and had lower odds of an FN finding of advanced cancer (odds ratio, 0.9 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.5]). Conclusion Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis improves sensitivity and specificity and reveals more invasive cancers with fewer nodal or distant metastases. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Schattner in this issue.

Quantifying the decrease in emergency department imaging utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic at a multicenter healthcare system in Ohio.

PURPOSE: To illustrate the change in emergency department (ED) imaging utilization at a multicenter health system in the state of Ohio during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted assessing ED imaging volumes between March 1, 2020, and May 11, 2020, during the COVID-19 crisis. A rolling 7-day total value was used for volume tracking and comparison. Total imaging utilization in the ED was compared with new COVID-19 cases in our region. Utilization was first categorized by modality and then by plain films and computed tomography (CT) scans grouped by body part. CT imaging of the chest was specifically investigated by assessing both CT chest only exams and CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis (C/A/P) exams. Ultimately, matching pair-wise statistical analysis of exam volumes was performed to assess significance of volume change. RESULTS: Our multicenter health system experienced a 46% drop in imaging utilization (p < 0.0001) during the pandemic. Matching pair-wise analysis showed a statistically significant volume decrease by each modality and body part. The exceptions were non-contrast chest CT, which increased (p = 0.0053), and non-trauma C/A/P CT, which did not show a statistically significant volume change (p = 0.0633). CONCLUSION: ED imaging utilization trends revealed through actual health system data will help inform evidence-based decisions for more accurate volume predictions and therefore institutional preparedness for current and future pandemics.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Decreased Imaging Utilization: A Single Institutional Experience.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Predictive models and anecdotal articles suggest radiology practices were losing 50%-70% of their normal imaging volume during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using actual institutional data, we investigated the change in imaging utilization and revenue during this public health crisis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging performed within the 8-week span between March 8 and April 30, 2020 was categorized into the COVID-19 healthcare crisis timeframe. The first week of this date range and the 10 weeks prior were used to derive the normal practice expected volume. A rolling 7-day total value was used for volume tracking and comparison. Total imaging utilization was derived and organized by patient setting (outpatient, inpatient, emergency) and imaging modality (X-ray, CT, Mammography, MRI, Nuclear Medicine/PET, US). The three highest volume hospitals were analyzed. Revenue information was collected from the hospital billing system. RESULTS: System-wide imaging volume decreased by 55% between April 7 and 13, 2020. Outpatient exams decreased by 68% relative to normal practice. Emergency exams decreased by 48% and inpatient exams declined by 31%. Mammograms and nuclear medicine scans were the most affected modalities, decreasing by 93% and 61%, respectively. The main campus hospital experienced less relative imaging volume loss compared to the other smaller and outpatient-driven hospitals. At its lowest point, the technical component revenue from main campus imaging services demonstrated a 49% negative variance from normal practice. CONCLUSION: The trends and magnitude of the actual imaging utilization data presented will help inform evidence-based decisions for more accurate volume predictions, policy changes, and institutional preparedness for current and future pandemics.

Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

Setting Up an Abbreviated Breast MRI Program: Our Two-year Implementation Experience.

Mammography is the long-standing screening tool for detecting breast cancer. Breast MRI is the most sensitive screening modality; however, it has been reserved for patients who are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) overcomes the limitations of cost and scanner time when considering screening patients at average or slightly elevated risk. This paper discusses the practical considerations for implementing an AB-MRI program on many levels, after our two-year experience. One of the first steps in introducing an AB-MRI program, since there is no standardized protocol, is determining and implementing a protocol. Since there is no Current Procedural Terminology code for an AB-MRI, a self-pay charge should be established. Adjusting MRI scheduling templates to accommodate the 10-minute AB-MRI exam is helpful. Communication with the breast team and the education of referring physicians is a key step to ensure awareness of a new screening option. As the AB-MRI program is incorporated into a practice, auditing of routine screening outcomes several months after commencement is invaluable to the continued success of the program.

Clinical, imaging, and intervention factors associated with the upgrade of isolated flat epithelial atypia.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine clinical, imaging, and intervention factors associated with the upgrade of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) diagnosed on vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in order to formulate criteria for excision and better assist in management. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, 254 patients had a form of atypia diagnosed on ultrasound, MRI or stereotactic VAB and met eligibility for this study. Demographic, imaging, biopsy and pathology characteristics were analyzed for association with upgrade. We compared isolated FEA to all of the atypias grouped together. RESULTS: Of the 254 atypia lesions, 72 (28%) were isolated FEA, and the upgrade rate was 2.8% (2/72). Statistically significant factors present with upgrade of isolated FEA include personal history of breast cancer and cancer diagnosis on a concurrent separate core biopsy. Other factors associated with upgrade include first degree family history of breast cancer, segmental calcification distribution, extent of calcifications >2 cm, and <25% of calcifications removed on biopsy. CONCLUSION: In patients with biopsy results of isolated FEA, in the absence of personal or first degree family history of breast cancer, cancer on a concurrent biopsy, segmental calcification distribution, extent of calcifications >2 cm, and only 0-24% calcifications removed on biopsy, patients may be safely followed with imaging, avoiding unnecessary excision.

Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3-22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected. RESULTS: Performance parameters were compared for women screened with digital mammography alone (n = 278,908) and digital mammography + tomosynthesis (n = 173,414). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography produced significant reductions in recall rates for all age groups and significant increases in cancer detection rates for women 40-69. Largest recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis was for women 40-49, decreasing from 137 (95% CI 117-156) to 115 (95% CI 95-135); difference, -22 (95% CI -26 to -18; P < .001). Simultaneous increase in invasive cancer detection rate for women 40-49 from 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-1.9) to 2.7 (95% CI 2.2-3.1) with tomosynthesis (difference, 1.1; 95% CI 0.6-1.6; P < .001) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography increased invasive cancer detection rates for women 40-69 and decreased recall rates for all age groups with largest performance gains seen in women 40-49. The similar performance seen with tomosynthesis screening for women in their 40s compared to digital mammography for women in their 50s argues strongly for commencement of mammography screening at age 40 using tomosynthesis.

PET/MRI of the breast.

The future clinical use of the combination of positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-Fluoro[F-18]-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose (FDG)and MRI is still unclear. If a patient requires a PET and breast DCE-MRI for staging purposes, both scans can be done in the same visit. In the breast, DCE-MRI is better at lesion detection (sensitivity), margin evaluation, and has a higher specificity than CT. The potential for multiparametric qualitative and quantitative imaging is also an advantage of PET/MRI which provides opportunity to improve tumor characterization and may ultimately lead to outcome prediction. This review discusses technical and clinical aspects of this emerging technology in breast cancer patients.

Comparing cancer detection rates of patients undergoing short term follow-up vs routine follow-up after benign breast biopsies, is follow-up needed?

PURPOSE: To compare cancer rates after benign breast biopsies between patients with short term imaging follow-up (STFU) and those with routine follow-up (RFU). MATERIALS & METHODS: Retrospective review of benign stereotactic, US or DCE-MRI breast biopsies. RESULTS: Of 580 lesions, 192 (33%) had STFU, and 388 (67%) had RFU. For US and mammographic detected lesions, there is no difference in cancer rates between the STFU (1 cancer, n=148) and the RFU group (0 cancer, n=365) (p=0.29). There were 2 cancers in the STFU group versus 0 in the RFU DCE-MRI group (p=0.54). CONCLUSION: Our results support RFU after benign ultrasound and stereotactic breast biopsies.

Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

IMPORTANCE: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. EXPOSURES: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

Addition of shear-wave elastography during second-look MR imaging-directed breast US: effect on lesion detection and biopsy targeting.

PURPOSE: To determine if adding shear-wave elastography (SWE) to second-look ultrasonography (US) after breast dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging helps find or target lesions seen on DCE MR images for US-guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from patients. From May 2011 to July 2012, 73 women with 96 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 or 5 lesions after DCE MR imaging prospectively consented to undergo SWE during second-look US. If a lesion was not confidently seen with B-mode US, SWE during real-time scanning was performed to determine if SWE helped find or target lesions for US biopsy. A qualitative SWE six-point color scale was used to record the maximum elasticity in and around lesions. All lesions underwent US or DCE MR imaging-guided core biopsy. RESULTS: Median participant age was 52 years (range, 21-81 years). In 72 patients who underwent DCE MR imaging, 96 BI-RADS category 4 or 5 lesions were detected in 81 breasts. There were 29 (30%) malignancies (one malignancy was of nonbreast origin), 14 (15%) high-risk lesions, and 53 (55%) benign lesions. US revealed 22 cancers, and seven cancers were detected only with MR imaging. Real-time SWE helped find one lesion and target four lesions that were incompletely assessed with gray-scale US. These five lesions that were localized or targeted for biopsy were invasive cancers, representing 23% of the 22 malignancies detected with US. CONCLUSION: Real-time SWE added to second-look US after DCE MR imaging increased the detection rate of cancers and helped target cancers for US-guided biopsy.

Neglecting to screen women between the ages of 40 and 49 years with mammography: what is the impact on breast cancer diagnosis?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare breast cancer stage at diagnosis in two groups of women between 40 and 49 years old: women undergoing screening mammography and women with a symptom needing diagnostic workup. This comparison is indicative of the impact of forgoing screening in this age group, as recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was used to collect the results of imaging-guided core needle biopsies performed in women between the ages of 40 and 49 years from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009. In patients diagnosed with breast cancer or a high-risk lesion, the reason for presentation, pathology, tumor size, stage, and receptor characteristics were recorded. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 108 primary breast cancers, 71 were detected in the screened group and 37 in the unscreened group. The screened group was significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ than the unscreened group (22 vs 1, chi-square = 11.6, p = 0.001). Furthermore, screened patients with invasive carcinoma were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at earlier stages (chi-square = 5.02, p = 0.025). The size of invasive breast cancer in the screened group was significantly smaller as well (chi-square = 9.3, p = 0.002). Of the high-risk lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia (n = 29) and lobular carcinoma in situ (n = 8) were most frequently seen. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients undergoing screening mammography were diagnosed at earlier stages with smaller tumors. Screening also allows detection of high-risk lesions, which may prompt chemoprevention and lower subsequent breast cancer risk. We continue to support screening mammography in women between the ages of 40 and 49 years.