European validation of an image-derived AI-based short-term risk model for individualized breast cancer screening-a nested case-control study.

Background: Image-derived artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models for breast cancer have shown high discriminatory performances compared with clinical risk models based on family history and lifestyle factors. However, little is known about their generalizability across European screening settings. We therefore investigated the discriminatory performances of an AI-based risk model in European screening settings. Methods: Using four European screening populations in three countries (Italy, Spain, Germany) screened between 2009 and 2020 for women aged 45-69, we performed a nested case-control study to assess the predictive performance of an AI-based risk model. In total, 739 women with incident breast cancers were included together with 7812 controls matched on year of study-entry. Mammographic features (density, microcalcifications, masses, left-right breast asymmetries of these features) were extracted using AI from negative digital mammograms at study-entry. Two-year absolute risks of breast cancer were predicted and assessed after two years of follow-up. Adjusted risk stratification performance metrics were reported per clinical guidelines. Findings: The overall adjusted Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (aAUC) of the AI risk model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.70-0.75) for breast cancers developed in four screening populations. In the 6.2% [529/8551] of women at high risk using the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines thresholds, cancers were more likely diagnosed after 2 years follow-up, risk-ratio (RR) 6.7 (95% CI 5.6-8.0), compared with the 69% [5907/8551] of women classified at general risk by the model. Similar risk-ratios were observed across levels of mammographic density. Interpretation: The AI risk model showed generalizable discriminatory performances across European populations and, predicted ∼30% of clinically relevant stage 2 and higher breast cancers in ∼6% of high-risk women who were sent home with a negative mammogram. Similar results were seen in women with fatty and dense breasts. Funding: Swedish Research Council.

Use of novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: an analysis of 17,884 consecutive two-view full-field digital mammography screening exams.

BACKGROUND: Novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) systems based on deep learning (DL) promise to support screen reading. PURPOSE: To test a DL-AI-CAD system compared to human reading on consecutive screening mammograms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 17,884 consecutive anonymized screening mammograms, double-read from January to November 2018, were processed by the DL-AI-CAD system. AI-CAD reading was considered positive if the AI-CAD case scores exceeded 30 (range = 1-100) and the lesion was correctly marked. Likewise, human reading (R1 or R2, respectively) was considered positive if the lesion was correctly identified and called. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and accuracy data were calculated. Ground truth for benign lesions: absence of malignancy after cancer registry matching (2022); for malignancy: histopathologic proof; evaluation was patient-based. RESULTS: In total, 114 screen-detected and 17 interval cancers (ICA) occurred. ROC analysis of screen-detected cancers yielded an AUC of 89% for AI-CAD. Sensitivity/specificity was 81.7%/80.2% for AI-CAD; 77.1%/91.7% for R1; 78.6/91.6% for R2. Combining each human reading with AI-CAD was as sensitive as human double-reading (all approximately 88%), but less specific (approximately 75%) compared to human double-reading (approximately 87%). These AI-CAD combinations required consensus readings for twice as many cases as the human combination. Four of 17 ICA exceeded a case score of 30; two of four CAD correctly marked the quadrant of the subsequent ICA. CONCLUSION: Including ICA cases, this AI-CAD achieved comparable sensitivity to human reading at lower specificity. Combining human reading and AI-CAD allows increasing sensitivity compared to single-reading.

Tomosynthesis with synthesised two-dimensional mammography yields higher cancer detection compared to digital mammography alone, also in dense breasts and in younger women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on breast cancer screening performance outcomes stratified into breast density, age, and reading procedure using 'digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D)' compared to 'digital mammography (DM) alone'. METHODS: Studies comparing 'DBT with s2D' and 'DM' were searched in PubMed and Cochrane library. Pooled risk ratios (RR) using fixed or random effects models (F-/REM) for cancer detection rates (CDR), recall rates, interval cancer rates (ICR), biopsy rates, and positive predictive values (PPV) 1-3 were calculated. Outcomes were stratified into breast density (non-dense and dense), age (<60, ≥60), and reading procedure (double-/non-double reading). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies. Using DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone resulted in a higher increase in CDR for dense ([number of studies included, FEM RR, 95% confidence interval (CI)]; n = 3, 1.60, 1.16-2.22) versus non-dense breasts (n = 3, 1.32, 1.08-1.61). Recall rates were lower in dense (n = 2, 0.84, 0.75-0.94), but much lower for non-dense breasts (n = 2, 0.65, 0.59-0.72). Age stratification resulted in small differences in CDR (<60: n = 2, 1.64, 1.18-2.29 / ≥60: n = 2, 1.56, 1.19-2.05). After screening with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone the risk of being recalled was less in non-double (n = 3, 0.57, 0.54-0.60) than in double reading (n = 5, 0.95, 0.81-1.11) and the risk of cancer detection was higher in double reading (n = 6, 1.53, 1.40-1.67) than in non-double reading (n = 4, 1.17, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSION: Since only few studies are available for meta-analyses statistical significance strongly depends on single study results. Taking this into account, the most important results concern the increase of CDR in women with dense breasts, the increased CDR in double reading, and the lower recall rates particularly with non-double reading.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) in breast cancer screening is associated with higher cancer detection and lower recalls compared to digital mammography (DM) alone: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) in screening is problematic due to increased radiation by the double exposure. Synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) calculated from DBT datasets at no additional dose appears a sensible alternative compared to adding DM. This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on screening performance outcomes in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. METHODS: PubMed was searched from January 1, 2010, to September 2, 2020. Studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone in breast cancer screening were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were estimated for cancer detection rates (CDR), recall rates, interval cancer rates (ICR), biopsy rates, and positive predictive values for recalls (PPV-1), for biopsies recommended (PPV-2), and for biopsies performed (PPV-3). Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out approach. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. RESULTS: Twelve papers covering 414,281 women were included from 766 records identified. CDR is increased ([RR, 95% CI] 1.35, 1.20-1.52), recall rates are decreased (0.79, 0.64-0.98), and PPV-1 is increased (1.69, 1.45-1.96) when using DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. ICR and biopsy rates did not differ, but PPV-2 respectively PPV-3 increased with DBT plus s2D (1.57, 1.08-2.28 respectively 1.36, 1.17-1.58). Overall RoB of studies was assessed to be low. CONCLUSION: Results show improved diagnostic outcomes with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone and underline the value of DBT in combination with s2D in breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: • DBT plus s2D is associated with higher CDR, lower recall rates, and a higher PPV-1 compared to DM alone in breast cancer screening. • No differences in biopsy rates were found between screening modalities, but PPV-2 and PPV-3 were higher in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. • We identified inconsistent results of ICR in two studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone-resulting in no differences when pooling ICR in meta-analysis.

[Systematic and quality-assured early diagnosis of sporadic breast cancer : Update on screening effects and scientific studies]. / Systematische und qualitätsgesicherte Früherkennung des sporadischen Mammakarzinoms : Update Screening-Effekte und wissenschaftliche Studien.

BACKGROUND: A quality-assured mammography screening programme has been available since 2009, nationwide, to all women in Germany between the ages of 50 and 69. The programme is based on the European Guidelines. In this review article the authors summarize the current status of scientific assessments of this national early detection programme for breast cancer and provide an outlook regarding ongoing studies on effectiveness tests and further development. RESULTS: We expect a decline in mortality rates relating to breast cancer as a result of successfully bringing diagnoses forward and a decrease in advanced breast cancer after a repeated screening. The extent will be shown in the current ZEBra study on mortality evaluation. CONCLUSION: Potential for a further increase in the effectiveness of the systematic early detection of breast cancer can be identified in four areas: (1) More women should take advantage of the early detection opportunities offered by the medical insurance funds; so far, on average, only about 50% of the women between 50 and 69 who are entitled to a screening examination actually take part in the programme. (2) Entitlement to take part in the programme should be extended to women over 70. (3) The further development of digital mammography towards digital breast tomosynthesis promises to reduce the number of false positive recalls while at the same time increasing sensitivity. (4) There should be scientific studies relating to an extension of screening strategies for the small number of women in the entitlement range who have extremly dense breasts.

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.

Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.

Organizers of medical educational courses are often confronted with questions that are clinically relevant yet trespassing the frontiers of scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine at the point of care. Therefore, since 2007 organizers of breast teaching courses in German language met biannually to find a consensus in clinically relevant questions that have not been definitely answered by science. The questions were prepared during the 3 months before the meeting according to a structured process and finally agreed upon the day before the consensus meeting. At the consensus meeting, the open questions concerning 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound, MR mammography, interventions as well as risk-based imaging of the breast were presented first for electronic anonymized voting, and then the results of the audience were separately displayed from the expert votes. Thereafter, an introductory statement of the moderator was followed by pros/cons of two experts, and subsequently the final voting was performed. With ≥75% of votes of the expert panel, an answer qualified as a consensus statement. Seventeen consensus statements were gained, addressing for instance the use of 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound in screening, MR mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk, markers for localization of pathologic axillary lymph nodes, and standards in risk-based imaging of the breast. After the evaluation, comments from the experts on each field were gathered supplementarily. Methodology, transparency, and soundness of statements achieve a unique yield for all course organizers and provide solid pathways for decision making in breast imaging.

Detection of Breast Cancer with Mammography: Effect of an Artificial Intelligence Support System.

Purpose To compare breast cancer detection performance of radiologists reading mammographic examinations unaided versus supported by an artificial intelligence (AI) system. Materials and Methods An enriched retrospective, fully crossed, multireader, multicase, HIPAA-compliant study was performed. Screening digital mammographic examinations from 240 women (median age, 62 years; range, 39-89 years) performed between 2013 and 2017 were included. The 240 examinations (100 showing cancers, 40 leading to false-positive recalls, 100 normal) were interpreted by 14 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists, once with and once without AI support. The readers provided a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score and probability of malignancy. AI support provided radiologists with interactive decision support (clicking on a breast region yields a local cancer likelihood score), traditional lesion markers for computer-detected abnormalities, and an examination-based cancer likelihood score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), specificity and sensitivity, and reading time were compared between conditions by using mixed-models analysis dof variance and generalized linear models for multiple repeated measurements. Results On average, the AUC was higher with AI support than with unaided reading (0.89 vs 0.87, respectively; P = .002). Sensitivity increased with AI support (86% [86 of 100] vs 83% [83 of 100]; P = .046), whereas specificity trended toward improvement (79% [111 of 140]) vs 77% [108 of 140]; P = .06). Reading time per case was similar (unaided, 146 seconds; supported by AI, 149 seconds; P = .15). The AUC with the AI system alone was similar to the average AUC of the radiologists (0.89 vs 0.87). Conclusion Radiologists improved their cancer detection at mammography when using an artificial intelligence system for support, without requiring additional reading time. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

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.

Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study.

Background Data on the value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for further assessment of screen-detected lesions are still limited. Purpose To compare screening mammography, single-view DBT and ultrasound-information (TS) vs. screening mammography, additional views and ultrasound-information (AV) for assessment of screen-detected abnormalities. Material and Methods The use of wide-angle DBT for screen-detected, soft-tissue abnormalities requiring additional views was investigated: 241 cases (206 benign and 35 malignant lesions), verified by histology or two-year follow-up, were read by ten readers as TS and as AV sets, yielding 2410 diagnoses for each set. Readings were randomly sequenced. Results The mean interval between readings was nine weeks (random sequence). Evaluation was breast-based. Overall, in terms of area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC; varying degree of suspicion cutoff), TS and AV readings showed similar performance: for TS, AUC was 0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.871-0.907) and for AV, AUC was 0.903 (95% CI = 0.886-0.921). TS readings had slightly higher sensitivity than AV readings (96.9% vs. 95.4%) but lower specificity (50% vs. 58.1%) and more variations between reader performance; absolute false negatives (FN) were reduced in 8/16 readers, equal in 5/16, and increased in only 3/16. Conclusion This study broadly confirms previous data showing equivalence of DBT to AV. However, bias against TS may have occurred since the region of interest was not indicated in the TS set as compared to its obvious identification on the AV set by the selected spot views. A key finding is that reader experience with DBT may be more important than so far reported.

Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to countercheck the equivalence of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or DBT with additional views (DBT+AV) compared to traditional standard assessment by additional views (AV) in patients with a screen-detected abnormality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a screen-detected abnormality were consecutively invited to obtain 1 single-view wide-angle DBT in addition to the indicated AV. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. RESULTS: This study is based on 311 lesions in 285 patients with a follow-up of > 2 years and/or biopsy. Counting BI-RADS 0 and 3 as positive calls, the sensitivity/specificity of DBT+AV versus DBT only versus AV only were 96.4/54.3%, 96.4/56.6%, and 90.9/42.2%, respectively. The specificities and BI-RADS classifications differed significantly (p < 0.01). AV appeared unnecessary in 88.8% of the cases. CONCLUSION: DBT appeared to be at least equivalent to AV for assessing indeterminate screen-detected lesions and could replace AV for most lesions. To obtain the extra information appears possible without increasing the overall radiation dose. Subsequent blinded reader studies are ongoing.

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.

Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening.

This review investigated the relative performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (alone or with full field digital mammography (FFDM) or synthetic digital mammography) compared with FFDM alone for detecting breast cancer lesions in asymptomatic women. A systematic review was carried out according to systematic reviewing principles provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. A protocol was developed a priori. The review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42014013949). Searches were undertaken in October 2014. Following selection, five studies were eligible. Higher cancer detection rates were observed when comparing DBT + FFDM with FFDM in two European studies: the summary difference per 1000 screens was 2.43 (95% CI: 1.8 to 3.1). Both European studies found lower false positive rates for individual readers. One found a lower recall rate based on conditional recall. The second study was not designed to compare post-arbitration recall rates between FFDM and DBT + FFDM. One European study presented data on interval cancer rates; sensitivity and specificity for DBT + FFDM were both higher compared to FFDM. One large multicentre US study showed a higher cancer detection rate for DBT + FFDM, while two smaller US studies did not find statistically significant differences. Reductions in recall and false positive rates were observed in the US studies in favour of DBT + FFDM. In comparison to FFDM, DBT, as an adjunct to FFDM, has a higher cancer detection rate, increasing the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Additional benefits of DBT may also include reduced recalls and, consequently, reduced costs and distress caused to women who would have been recalled.

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information.

UNLABELLED: This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. KEY POINTS: • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.

Magnetic resonance imaging: the evolution of breast imaging.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: To provide an overview of the principle of current breast MRI, the available evidence concerning its indications and optimum use and future potentials. METHODS AND RESULTS: To date sensitivities of 90-91% have been achieved with a specificity of 72-75%. MRI is the most sensitive method for detecting invasive carcinoma and comparable to mammography concerning detection of DCIS. The achievable specificity, false positive and biopsy rates, however, are much lower than for screening mammography thus do not allow its use for screening of the general population. Indications with proven advantages concern screening of women at high risk and special diagnostic problems that cannot be solved by conventional imaging and percutaneous biopsy: search for primary tumour in CUP syndrome, differentiation of nipple retraction, differentiation of scarring versus recurrence and selected difficult cases. There is no proven benefit for its general use for preoperative staging. One major problem may concern the imperfect interface between imaging and surgery. Further research is also needed for the use of MRI in women at intermediate risk. In women at low risk MRI screening is not recommended. Novel possibilities of MRI concern diffusion weighted imaging as well as MR spectroscopy. Their value for improved lesion differentiation is not yet fully established. Their main potential appears to concern an improved and earlier prediction of response to neoadjuvant therapy. Future developments might address development of more specific contrast agents, replacement of vascular enhancing agents by special MR techniques, testing of sodium MRI or image fusion with other imaging modalities. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: MRI allows new patho-physiological information and thus can complement the information available by conventional methods. Present research should concentrate on improving specificity, improving the interface of imaging and surgery and has to include outcome analyses. Due to issues of specificity the responsible use of MRI should be limited to appropriate indications.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.

Mammography screening is the only method presently considered appropriate for mass screening of asymptomatic women. Its frequent use, however, warrants diligent analysis of potential side effects. Radiation risk is far below the natural yearly risk of breast cancer and should not be used as an argument against screening. False-positive calls lead to additional imaging or histopathological assessment, mainly percutaneous breast biopsy. These measures are tolerated and accepted fairly well. Their number is limited by strict quality assurance and constant training. Interval cancers represent a limitation of breast screening that should prompt further research for optimization. Evaluation of overdiagnosis is a highly debated topic in the literature. According to the probably most realistic available calculations, overdiagnosis is acceptable as it is compensated by the potential mortality reduction. Nonetheless, this potential side effect warrants optimal adjustment of therapy to the patient's individual risk. The mortality reduction seen in randomized studies was confirmed by results from national screening programs. A recent case referent study indicated that improvements in mortality reduction run parallel to improved mammographic techniques. Use of less aggressive therapies is another valuable effect of screening. Awareness of potential problems, strict quality assurance, and further research should help to further develop screening programs.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group.

The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly increasing. EUSOMA organised a workshop in Milan on 20-21st October 2008 to evaluate the evidence currently available on clinical value and indications for breast MRI. Twenty-three experts from the disciplines involved in breast disease management - including epidemiologists, geneticists, oncologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons - discussed the evidence for the use of this technology in plenary and focused sessions. This paper presents the consensus reached by this working group. General recommendations, technical requirements, methodology, and interpretation were firstly considered. For the following ten indications, an overview of the evidence, a list of recommendations, and a number of research issues were defined: staging before treatment planning; screening of high-risk women; evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy; patients with breast augmentation or reconstruction; occult primary breast cancer; breast cancer recurrence; nipple discharge; characterisation of equivocal findings at conventional imaging; inflammatory breast cancer; and male breast. The working group strongly suggests that all breast cancer specialists cooperate for an optimal clinical use of this emerging technology and for future research, focusing on patient outcome as primary end-point.

B3 Lesions: Radiological Assessment and Multi-Disciplinary Aspects.

B3 lesions comprise different histopathological entities that are considered benign but 'of unknown biological potential'. These entities may act as risk indicators (for both breasts) or as non-obligatory precursors of malignancy. Being diagnosed at percutaneous breast biopsy, an additional risk of underestimate exists. Imaging appearances, histopathological appearance and risk of associated malignancy are presented. B3 lesions of high risk, which thus should usually be excised, include atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), pleomorphic or necrotic type of lobular neoplasia (LIN 3), and papillary lesions with atypias. Intermediate risk may be associated with classic lobular carcinoma in situ (LIN 2) or flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and low risk with radial sclerosing lesions (RSLs) and papillary lesions without atypias. LIN 1 is mostly an incidental finding acting as risk indicator. Follow-up is adequate if the initial diagnostic problem is solved. According to international guidelines, risk and subsequent recommendations should be discussed for each individual patient, taking into account biological risk, representative sampling, lesion size, lesion extent, percentage of lesion removal, other individual risks, and the possibility of surveillance. With vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB), surgery may be avoided for more of the small lesions at low risk. Further data collection and diligent evaluation may help to better assess the individual risk, to better adapt treatment recommendations and avoid overtreatment.