Diagnostic Performance of Point-of-Care Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measures to Reduce Biopsy in Breast Lesions at MRI: Clinical Validation.

Background The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group multicenter A6702 trial identified an optimal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff to potentially reduce biopsies by 21% without affecting sensitivity. Whether this performance can be achieved in clinical settings has not yet been established. Purpose To validate the performance of point-of-care ADC measurements with the A6702 trial ADC cutoff for reducing unnecessary biopsies in lesions detected at breast MRI. Materials and Methods Consecutive breast MRI examinations performed from May 2015 to January 2019 at a single medical center and showing biopsy-confirmed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions, without ipsilateral cancer, were identified. Point-of-care lesion ADC measurements collected at clinical interpretation were retrospectively evaluated. MRI examinations included axial T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences. Sensitivity and biopsy reduction rates were calculated by applying the A6702 optimal (ADC, 1.53 × 10-3 mm2/sec) and alternate conservative (1.68 × 10-3 mm2/sec) cutoffs. Lesion pathologic outcomes were the reference standard. To assess reproducibility, one radiologist repeated ADC measurements, and agreement was summarized using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results A total of 240 lesions in 201 women (mean age, 49 years ± 13 [SD]) with pathologic outcomes (63 malignant and 177 benign) were included. Applying the optimal ADC cutoff produced an overall biopsy reduction rate of 15.8% (38 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 11.2, 20.9]), with a sensitivity of 92.1% (58 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 82.4, 97.4]; sensitivity was 97.2% [35 of 36 lesions] [95% CI: 82.7, 99.6] for invasive cancers). Results were similar for screening versus diagnostic examinations (P = .92 and .40, respectively). Sensitivity was higher for masses than for nonmass enhancements (NMEs) (100% vs 85.3%; P = .009). Applying the conservative ADC cutoff achieved a sensitivity of 95.2% (60 of 63 lesions [95% CI: 86.7, 99.0]), with a biopsy reduction rate of 10.4% (25 of 240 lesions [95% CI: 6.7, 14.5]). Repeated single-reader measurements showed good agreement with clinical ADCs (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72 [95% CI: 0.58, 0.81]). Conclusion This study validated the clinical use of ADC cutoffs to reduce MRI-prompted biopsies by up to 16%, with a suggested tradeoff of lowered sensitivity for in situ and microinvasive disease manifesting as NME. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02022579 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Honda and Iima in this issue.

Lumpectomy without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 20-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study.

We report the 20-year rate of ipsilateral breast event (IBE) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with lumpectomy without radiation on a non-randomized prospective clinical trial. Patients were enrolled in cohort 1: low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, size ≤ 2.5 cm (n = 561); or cohort 2: high-grade DCIS, size ≤ 1 cm (n = 104). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event distributions. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and tests for significance for event times. 561 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 and 104 in cohort 2. After central pathology review, 26% in cohort 1 were recategorized as high-grade and 26% in cohort 2 as low- or intermediate-grade. Mean DCIS size was similar at 7.5 mm in cohort 1 and 7.8 mm in cohort 2. Surgical margin was ≥3 mm in 96% of patients, and about 30% received tamoxifen. Median follow-up was 19.2 years. There were 104 IBEs, of which 54 (52%) were invasive. The IBE and invasive IBE rates increased in both cohorts up to 15 years, then plateaued. The 20-year IBE rates were 17.8% for cohort 1 and 28.7% for cohort 2 (p = 0.005), respectively. Invasive IBE occurred in 9.8% and 15.1% (p = 0.09), respectively. On multivariable analysis, IBE risk increased with size and was higher in cohort 2, but grade and margin width were not significantly associated with IBE. For patients with DCIS treated with excision without radiation, the rate of IBE increased with size and assigned cohort mostly in the first 15 years.

Evolving Treatment Paradigms for Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Imaging Needs.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a nonobligate precursor to invasive cancer that classically presents as asymptomatic calcifications on screening mammography. The increase in DCIS diagnoses with organized screening programs has raised concerns about overdiagnosis, while a patientcentric push for more personalized care has increased awareness about DCIS overtreatment. The standard of care for most new DCIS diagnoses is surgical excision, but nonsurgical management via active monitoring is gaining attention, and multiple clinical trials are ongoing. Imaging, along with demographic and pathologic information, is a critical component of active monitoring efforts. Commonly used imaging modalities including mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, as well as newer modalities such as contrast-enhanced mammography and dedicated breast PET, can provide prognostic information to risk stratify patients for DCIS active monitoring eligibility. Furthermore, radiologists will be responsible for closely surveilling patients on active monitoring and identifying if invasive progression occurs. Active monitoring is a paradigm shift for DCIS care, but the success or failure will rely heavily on the interpretations and guidance of radiologists.

Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening.

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and abbreviated breast MRI (ABMRI) are emerging alternatives to standard MRI for supplemental breast cancer screening. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of CEM, ABMRI, and standard MRI. Materials and Methods This single-institution, prospective, blinded reader study included female participants referred for breast MRI from January 2018 to June 2021. CEM was performed within 14 days of standard MRI; ABMRI was produced from standard MRI images. Two readers independently interpreted each CEM and ABMRI after a washout period. Examination-level performance metrics calculated were recall rate, cancer detection, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation. Bootstrap and permutation tests were used to calculate 95% CIs and compare modalities. Results Evaluated were 492 paired CEM and ABMRI interpretations from 246 participants (median age, 51 years; IQR, 43-61 years). On 49 MRI scans with lesions recommended for biopsy, nine lesions showed malignant pathology. No differences in ABMRI and standard MRI performance were identified. Compared with standard MRI, CEM demonstrated significantly lower recall rate (14.0% vs 22.8%; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI: -14.0, -3.5), lower false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations (65.0 vs 162.6; difference, -97.6; 95% CI: -146.3, -50.8), and higher specificity (87.8% vs 80.2%; difference, 7.6%; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.1). Compared with standard MRI, CEM had significantly lower cancer detection rate (22.4 vs 36.6; difference, -14.2; 95% CI: -28.5, -2.0) and sensitivity (61.1% vs 100%; difference, -38.9%; 95% CI: -66.7, -12.5). The performance differences between CEM and ABMRI were similar to those observed between CEM and standard MRI. Conclusion ABMRI had comparable performance to standard MRI and may support more efficient MRI screening. CEM had lower recall and higher specificity compared with standard MRI or ABMRI, offset by lower cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared with standard MRI. These trade-offs warrant further consideration of patient population characteristics before widespread screening with CEM. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03517813 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

Breast Imaging Research: Tips for Obtaining Funding and Sustaining a Successful Career.

Many factors are involved in the successful development of early career breast imaging radiologists into independent investigators conducting impactful research. Key basic prerequisites for success include a motivated and resilient radiologist, institutional and departmental commitment to supporting early career physician-scientists, strong mentorship, and a flexible strategy for extramural funding that accounts for individualized professional goals. In this review, we describe these factors in greater detail, providing a practical overview for residents, fellows, and junior faculty who are interested in an academic career as a breast imaging radiologist engaged in original scientific research. We also describe the essential pieces of grant applications and summarize the professional milestones for early career physician-scientists as they look toward promotion to associate professor and sustained extramural funding.

Preoperative Breast MRI: Current Evidence and Patient Selection.

Breast MRI is the most sensitive imaging modality for the assessment of newly diagnosed breast cancer extent and can detect additional mammographically and clinically occult breast cancers in the ipsilateral and contralateral breasts. Nonetheless, appropriate use of breast MRI in the setting of newly diagnosed breast cancer remains debated. Though highly sensitive, MRI is less specific and may result in false positives and overestimation of disease when MRI findings are not biopsied prior to surgical excision. Furthermore, improved anatomic depiction of breast cancer on MRI has not consistently translated to improved clinical outcomes, such as lower rates of re-excision or breast cancer recurrence, though there is a paucity of well-designed studies examining these issues. In addition, current treatment paradigms have been developed in the absence of this more accurate depiction of disease span, which likely has limited the value of MRI. These issues have led to inconsistent and variable utilization of preoperative MRI across practice settings and providers. In this review, we discuss the history of breast MRI and its current use and recommendations with a focus on the preoperative setting. We review the evidence surrounding the use of preoperative MRI in the evaluation of breast malignancies and discuss the data on breast MRI in the setting of specific patient factors often used to determine breast MRI eligibility, such as age, index tumor phenotype, and breast density. Finally, we review the impact of breast MRI on surgical outcomes (re-excision and mastectomy rates) and long-term breast recurrence and survival outcomes.

Association Between Surgery Preference and Receipt in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ After Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112).

Importance: Guiding treatment decisions for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requires understanding patient preferences and the influence of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgeon recommendation. Objective: To identify factors associated with surgery preference and surgery receipt among a prospective cohort of women with newly diagnosed DCIS. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted at 75 participating institutions, including community practices and academic centers, across the US between March 25, 2015, and April 27, 2016. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 24, 2021. This was an ancillary study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112). Women with recently diagnosed unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. Participants who had documented surgery and completed the baseline patient-reported outcome questionnaires were included in this substudy. Exposures: Women received preoperative MRI and surgeon consultation and then underwent wide local excision or mastectomy. Participants will be followed up for recurrence and overall survival for 10 years from the date of surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported outcome questionnaires assessed treatment goals and concerns and surgery preference before MRI and after MRI and surgeon consultation. Results: Of the 368 participants enrolled 316 (86%) were included in this substudy (median [range] age, 59.5 [34-87] years; 45 women [14%] were Black; 245 [78%] were White; and 26 [8%] were of other race). Pre-MRI, age (odds ratio [OR] per 5-year increment, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80; P = .007) and the importance of keeping one's breast (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.72; P < .001) vs removal of the breast for peace of mind (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76; P = .03) were associated with surgery preference for mastectomy. After MRI and surgeon consultation, MRI upstaging (48 of 316 [15%]) was associated with patient preference for mastectomy (OR, 8.09; 95% CI, 2.51-26.06; P < .001). The 2 variables with the highest ORs for initial receipt of mastectomy were MRI upstaging (OR, 12.08; 95% CI, 4.34-33.61; P < .001) and surgeon recommendation (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 1.99-11.83; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, change in patient preference for DCIS surgery and surgery received were responsive to MRI results and surgeon recommendation. These data highlight the importance of ensuring adequate information and ongoing communication about the clinical significance of MRI findings and the benefits and risks of available treatment options.

Accelerated Breast Diffusion-weighted Imaging Using Multiband Sensitivity Encoding with the CAIPIRINHA Method: Clinical Experience at 3 T.

Purpose To examine the clinical value of multiband (MB) sensitivity encoding (SENSE)-accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for breast imaging by performing quantitative and qualitative comparisons with conventional diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging, or conventional DWI (cDWI). Materials and Methods In this prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03607552), women with breast cancer were recruited from July 2018 to July 2019 to undergo additional MB SENSE DWI during clinical 3-T breast MRI examinations. The cDWI and MB SENSE DWI acquisitions were assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Regions of interest were defined for tumorous and normal tissue, and the tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal index (SI) were calculated for both DWI methods. Three readers independently reviewed the two acquisitions side by side and provided relative image quality scores. Tumor ADC, CNR, and SI measures were compared between cDWI and MB SENSE DWI acquisitions by using a paired t test, and reader preferences were evaluated by using the sign test. Results The study included 38 women (median age, 48 years; range, 28-83 years). Overall agreement was good between cDWI and MB SENSE DWI tumor ADC measures (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.87 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.94]), and no differences were evident in the ADC (median, 0.93 × 10-3 mm2/sec vs 0.87 ×10-3 mm2/sec; P = .50), CNR (2.2 vs 2.3; P = .17), or SI (9.2 vs 9.2; P = .23) measurements. The image quality of cDWI and MB SENSE DWI acquisitions were considered equal for 51% of images (58 of 114), whereas MB SENSE DWI was preferred more often than cDWI (37% [42 of 114] vs 12% [14 of 114]; P < .001). The preference for MB SENSE DWI was most often attributed to better fat suppression. Conclusion MB SENSE can be used to accelerate breast DWI acquisition times without compromising the image quality or the fidelity of quantitative ADC measurements. Keywords: MR-Diffusion-weighted Imaging, Breast, Comparative Studies, Technology Assessment Clinical trial registration no. NCT03607552 © RSNA, 2022.

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: State-of-the-Art Review.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a nonobligate precursor of invasive cancer, and its detection, diagnosis, and management are controversial. DCIS incidence grew with the expansion of screening mammography programs in the 1980s and 1990s, and DCIS is viewed as a major driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For pathologists, the diagnosis and classification of DCIS is challenging due to undersampling and interobserver variability. Understanding the progression from normal breast tissue to DCIS and, ultimately, to invasive cancer is limited by a paucity of natural history data with multiple proposed evolutionary models of DCIS initiation and progression. Although radiologists are familiar with the classic presentation of DCIS as asymptomatic calcifications at mammography, the expanded pool of modalities, advanced imaging techniques, and image analytics have identified multiple potential biomarkers of histopathologic characteristics and prognosis. Finally, there is growing interest in the nonsurgical management of DCIS, including active surveillance, to reduce overtreatment and provide patients with more personalized management options. However, current biomarkers are not adept at enabling identification of occult invasive disease at biopsy or accurately predicting the risk of progression to invasive disease. Several active surveillance trials are ongoing and are expected to better identify women with low-risk DCIS who may avoid surgery.

Preoperative Breast MRI for Newly Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Imaging Features and Performance in a Multicenter Setting (ECOG-ACRIN E4112 Trial).

Background There are limited data from clinical trials describing preoperative MRI features and performance in the evaluation of mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Purpose To report qualitative MRI features of DCIS, MRI performance in the identification of additional disease, and associations of imaging features with pathologic, genomic, and surgical outcomes from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E4112 trial. Materials and Methods Secondary analyses of a multicenter prospective clinical trial from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group included women with DCIS diagnosed with conventional imaging techniques (mammography and US), confirmed via core-needle biopsy (CNB), and enrolled between March 2015 and April 2016 who were candidates for wide local excision (WLE) based on conventional imaging and clinical examination results. DCIS MRI features and pathologic features from CNB and excision were recorded. Each woman without invasive upgrade of the index DCIS at WLE received a 12-gene DCIS score. MRI performance metrics were calculated. Associations of imaging features with invasive upgrade, dichotomized DCIS score (<39 vs ≥39), and single WLE success were estimated in uni- and multivariable analyses. Results Among 339 women (median age, 60 years; interquartile range, 51-66 years), most DCIS cases showed nonmass enhancement (NME) (195 of 339 [58%]) on MRI scans with larger median size than on mammograms (19 mm vs 12 mm; P < .001). Positive predictive value of MRI-prompted CNBs was 32% (21 of 66) (95% CI: 22, 44), yielding an additional cancer detection rate of 6.2% (21 of 339) (95% CI: 4.1, 9.3). MRI false-positive rate was 14.2% (45 of 318) (95% CI: 10.7, 18.4). No imaging features were associated with invasive upgrade or DCIS score (P = .05 to P = .95). Smaller size and focal NME distribution at MRI were linked to single WLE success (P < .001). Conclusion Preoperative MRI depicted ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed with conventional imaging most commonly as nonmass enhancement, with larger median span than mammography, and additional cancer detection rate of 6.2%. MRI features of this subset of DCIS did not enable prediction of pathologic or genomic outcomes. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02352883 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kuhl in this issue. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 4, 2021.