New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening.

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Multi-parametric MRI lesion heterogeneity biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To identify intra-lesion imaging heterogeneity biomarkers in multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) for breast lesion diagnosis. METHODS: Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) and Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) of 73 female patients, with 85 histologically verified breast lesions were acquired. Non-rigid multi-resolution registration was utilized to spatially align sequences. Four (4) DCE (2nd post-contrast frame, Initial-Enhancement, Post-Initial-Enhancement and Signal-Enhancement-Ratio) and one (1) DWI (Apparent-Diffusion-Coefficient) representations were analyzed, considering a representative lesion slice. 11 1st-order-statistics and 16 texture features (Gray-Level-Co-occurrence-Matrix (GLCM) and Gray-Level-Run-Length-Matrix (GLRLM) based) were derived from lesion segments, provided by Fuzzy C-Means segmentation, across the 5 representations, resulting in 135 features. Least-Absolute-Shrinkage and Selection-Operator (LASSO) regression was utilized to select optimal feature subsets, subsequently fed into 3 classification schemes: Logistic-Regression (LR), Random-Forest (RF), Support-Vector-Machine-Sequential-Minimal-Optimization (SVM-SMO), assessed with Receiver-Operating-Characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: LASSO regression resulted in 7, 6 and 7 features subsets from DCE, DWI and mpMRI, respectively. Best classification performance was obtained by the RF multi-parametric scheme (Area-Under-ROC-Curve, (AUC) ± Standard-Error (SE), AUC ± SE = 0.984 ± 0.025), as compared to DCE (AUC ± SE = 0.961 ± 0.030) and DWI (AUC ± SE = 0.938 ± 0.032) and statistically significantly higher as compared to DWI. The selected mpMRI feature subset highlights the significance of entropy (1st-order-statistics and 2nd-order-statistics (GLCM)) and percentile features extracted from 2nd post-contrast frame, PIE, SER maps and ADC map. CONCLUSION: Capturing breast intra-lesion heterogeneity, across mpMRI lesion segments with 1st-order-statistics and texture features (GLCM and GLRLM based), offers a valuable diagnostic tool for breast cancer.