Clinical Integration of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Imaging.

This article describes an approach to planning and implementing artificial intelligence products in a breast screening service. It highlights the importance of an in-depth understanding of the end-to-end workflow and effective project planning by a multidisciplinary team. It discusses the need for monitoring to ensure that performance is stable and meets expectations, as well as focusing on the potential for inadvertantly generating inequality. New cross-discipline roles and expertise will be needed to enhance service delivery.

Evidence-informed recommendations on managing breast screening atypia: perspectives from an expert panel consensus meeting reviewing results from the Sloane atypia project.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential to maximize patient benefit and to reduce clinical uncertainty and inconsistency in clinical practice. Gaps in the evidence base can be addressed by data acquired in routine practice. At present, there is no international consensus on management of women diagnosed with atypical lesions in breast screening programmes. Here, we describe how routine NHS breast screening data collected by the Sloane atypia project was used to inform a management pathway that maximizes early detection of cancer and minimizes over-investigation of lesions with uncertain malignant potential. A half-day consensus meeting with 11 clinical experts, 1 representative from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, 6 representatives from NHS England (NHSE) including from Commissioning, and 2 researchers was held to facilitate discussions of findings from an analysis of the Sloane atypia project. Key considerations of the expert group in terms of the management of women with screen detected atypia were: (1) frequency and purpose of follow-up; (2) communication to patients; (3) generalizability of study results; and (4) workforce challenges. The group concurred that the new evidence does not support annual surveillance mammography for women with atypia, irrespective of type of lesion, or woman's age. Continued data collection is paramount to monitor and audit the change in recommendations.

Should we share breast density information during breast cancer screening in the United Kingdom? an integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: Dense breasts are an established risk factor for breast cancer and also reduce the sensitivity of mammograms. There is increasing public concern around breast density in the UK, with calls for this information to be shared at breast cancer screening. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database, Cochrane Library and grey literature, using broad search terms in October 2022. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. The results were narratively synthesised by five research questions: desire for information, communication formats, psychological impact, knowledge impact and behaviour change. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies: three Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), three cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, one qualitative interview study, one mixed methods study and two 2021 systematic reviews. Nine studies were based in the United States of America (USA), five in Australia, two in the UK and one in Croatia. One systematic review included 14 USA studies, and the other 27 USA studies, 1 Australian and 1 Canadian. The overall GRADE evidence quality rating for each research question was very low to low.Generally, participants wanted to receive breast density information. Conversations with healthcare professionals were more valued and effective than letters. Breast density awareness after notification varied greatly between studies.Breast density information either did not impact frequency of mammography screening or increased the intentions of participants to return for routine screening as well as intention to access, and uptake of, supplementary screening. People from ethnic minority groups or of lower socioeconomic status (SES) had greater confusion following notification, and, along with those without healthcare insurance, were less likely to access supplementary screening. CONCLUSION: Breast density specific research in the UK, including different communities, is needed before the UK considers sharing breast density information at screening. There are also practical considerations around implementation and recording, which need to be addressed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Currently, sharing breast density information at breast cancer screening in the UK may not be beneficial to participants and could widen inequalities. UK specific research is needed, and measurement, communication and future testing implications need to be carefully considered.

Are mammography image acquisition factors, compression pressure and paddle tilt, associated with breast cancer detection in screening?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations between objectively measured mammographic compression pressure and paddle tilt and breast cancer (BC) detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, subsequent screens, or in-between screens (interval cancers). METHODS: Automated pressure and paddle tilt estimates were derived for 80,495 mammographic examinations in a UK population-based screening programme. Adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the associations of compression parameters with BC detected at contemporaneous screen (777 cases).Nested case-control designs were used to estimate associations of pressure and tilt with: (a) interval cancer (148 cases/625 age-matched controls) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (344/1436), via conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Compression pressure was negatively associated with odds of BC at contemporaneous screen (odds ratio (OR) for top versus bottom third of the pressure distribution: 0.74; 95% CI 0.60, 0.92; P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.007). There was weak evidence that moderate pressure at screening was associated with lower odds of interval cancer (OR for middle versus bottom third: 0.63; 95% CI 0.38, 1.05; p = 0.079), but no association was found between pressure and the odds of BC at subsequent screen. There was no evidence that paddle tilt was associated with the odds of contemporaneous, subsequent screen or interval cancer detection. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are consistent with compression pressure, but not paddle tilt, affecting the performance of mammographic screening by interfering with its ability to detect cancers. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Inadequate or excessive compression pressure at screening may contribute to a reduced ability to detect cancers, resulting in a greater number of interval cancer cases.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

To what extent are objectively measured mammographic imaging techniques associated with compression outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between objectively measurable imaging techniques and the resulting compression thickness and dose. METHODS: The study included 80,495 routine screens from the South-West London Breast Screening Service between March 2013 and July 2017. Average compression force, paddle tilt and dose were calculated. The Volpara® DensityTM algorithm was used to estimate pressure, breast volume and density.Linear regression models, using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to account for clustering by practitioner, assessed the strength of the associations between the imaging compression outcomes, (thickness, dose) and imaging techniques (force, pressure and paddle tilt), adjusting for the subject's characteristics (age, ethnicity, breast volume and percent mammographic density). RESULTS: Fully adjusted linear regression models showed that compression thickness decreased by ~1 mm (~2% of mean thickness) for every 1daN increase in force and decreased by ~0.8 mm with an increase of 1 kPa of pressure (at median pressure). Increasing pressure above 15 kPa resulted in minimal reduction in thickness. Dose increased with increased force but decreased by ~1% of mean dose with every increase in 1 kPa of pressure. For 1o increase in paddle tilt, the compression thickness increased by ~1.5 mm (~2.5%) and dose increased by ~2.5%, (Pt <0.001 in all cases). CONCLUSION: Differences in imaging technique are associated with imaging outcome measures (thickness and dose). A better understanding of the association between objective image acquisition parameters and tumour conspicuity could lead to clearer guidelines for practitioners. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Increased paddle tilt is associated with increased compression thickness and increased dose after adjustment for breast volume and force applied.

Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the detection of subtle lesions (calcification clusters or masses) when using the combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthetic mammography (SM) with digital mammography (DM) alone or combined with DBT. METHODS: A set of 166 cases without cancer was acquired on a DBT mammography system. Realistic subtle calcification clusters and masses in the DM images and DBT planes were digitally inserted into 104 of the acquired cases. Three study arms were created: DM alone, DM with DBT and SM with DBT. Five mammographic readers located the centre of any lesion within the images that should be recalled for further investigation and graded their suspiciousness. A JAFROC figure of merit (FoM) and lesion detection fraction (LDF) were calculated for each study arm. The visibility of the lesions in the DBT images was compared with SM and DM images. RESULTS: For calcification clusters, there were no significant differences (p > 0.075) in FoM or LDF. For masses, the FoM and LDF were significantly improved in the arms using DBT compared to DM alone (p < 0.001). On average, both calcification clusters and masses were more visible on DBT than on DM and SM images. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that masses were detected better with DBT than with DM alone and there was no significant difference (p = 0.075) in LDF between DM&DBT and SM&DBT for calcifications clusters. Our results support previous studies that it may be acceptable to not acquire digital mammography alongside tomosynthesis for subtle calcification clusters and ill-defined masses. KEY POINTS: • The detection of masses was significantly better using DBT than with digital mammography alone. • The detection of calcification clusters was not significantly different between digital mammography and synthetic 2D images combined with tomosynthesis. • Our results support previous studies that it may be acceptable to not acquire digital mammography alongside tomosynthesis for subtle calcification clusters and ill-defined masses for the imaging technology used.

Quantitative breast density analysis to predict interval and node-positive cancers in pursuit of improved screening protocols: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether quantitative breast density (BD) serves as an imaging biomarker for more intensive breast cancer screening by predicting interval, and node-positive cancers. METHODS: This case-control study of 1204 women aged 47-73 includes 599 cancer cases (302 screen-detected, 297 interval; 239 node-positive, 360 node-negative) and 605 controls. Automated BD software calculated fibroglandular volume (FGV), volumetric breast density (VBD) and density grade (DG). A radiologist assessed BD using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) determined whether BD could predict mode of detection (screen-detected or interval); node-negative cancers; node-positive cancers, and all cancers vs. controls. RESULTS: FGV, VBD, VAS, and DG all discriminated interval cancers (all p < 0.01) from controls. Only FGV-quartile discriminated screen-detected cancers (p < 0.01). Based on AUC, FGV discriminated all cancer types better than VBD or VAS. FGV showed a significantly greater discrimination of interval cancers, AUC = 0.65, than of screen-detected cancers, AUC = 0.61 (p < 0.01) as did VBD (0.63 and 0.53, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FGV, VBD, VAS and DG discriminate interval cancers from controls, reflecting some masking risk. Only FGV discriminates screen-detected cancers perhaps adding a unique component of breast cancer risk.

OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database: A Large-Scale Resource of Mammography Images and Clinical Data.

Supplemental material is available for this article.

Left-right breast asymmetry and risk of screen-detected and interval cancers in a large population-based screening population.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations between automated volumetric estimates of mammographic asymmetry and breast cancers detected at the same ("contemporaneous") screen, at subsequent screens, or in between (interval cancers). METHODS: Automated measurements from mammographic images (N = 79,731) were used to estimate absolute asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and dense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population of attendees of a UK breast screening programme. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with the odds of a breast cancer detected at contemporaneous screen (767 cases), adjusted for relevant confounders.Nested case-control investigations were designed to examine associations between asymmetry and the odds of: (a) interval cancer (numbers of cases/age-matched controls: 153/646) and (b) subsequent screen-detected cancer (345/1438), via conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: DV, but not BV, asymmetry was positively associated with the odds of contemporaneous breast cancer (P-for-linear-trend (Pt) = 0.018). This association was stronger for first (prevalent) screens (Pt = 0.012). Both DV and BV asymmetry were positively associated with the odds of an interval cancer diagnosis (Pt = 0.060 and 0.030, respectively). Neither BV nor DV asymmetry were associated with the odds of having a subsequent screen-detected cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Increased DV asymmetry was associated with the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis at a contemporaneous screen or as an interval cancer. BV asymmetry was positively associated with the risk of an interval cancer diagnosis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The findings suggest that DV and BV asymmetry may provide additional signals for detecting contemporaneous cancers and assessing the likelihood of interval cancers in population-based screening programmes.

Radiological audit of interval breast cancers: Estimation of tumour growth rates.

INTRODUCTION: This multicentre, retrospective study aimed to establish correlation between estimated tumour volume doubling times (TVDT) from a series of interval breast cancers with their clinicopathological features. The potential impact of delayed diagnosis on prognosis was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Interval cancers, where screening mammograms demonstrated changes that were retrospectively classified as either uncertain or suspicious, were reviewed from five screening units within the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). Data collected included the time interval between screening mammogram and cancer diagnosis, the size of the initial mammographic abnormality and of the subsequent cancer, demographics, mammographic density and tumour biology. We estimated volume doubling times and the estimated change in size and node status, which would have followed if these cancers had been detected at the previous screen. RESULTS: 306 interval cancers meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Average time from screening to diagnosis was 644 days (SD 276 days). 19% were diagnosed in the first twelve months, 42% in the subsequent twelve months and 39% thereafter. Overall average estimated TVDT was 167 days (95% CI 151-186). Significant differences were noted with age (p = 0.01), grade (p < 0.001) and ER status (p < 0.001) with women under 60, grade 3 cancers and ER negative cancers having shorter TVDTs. HER2 positive tumours had shorter doubling times than HER2 negative, but this difference was not statistically significant. It was estimated that diagnosing these cancers at the previous screen would have increased ten-year survival from 82% to 86%. CONCLUSION: High grade, ER negativity and younger age were associated with shorter durations of TVDT. The role of HER2 status on interval cancer growth rate requires further assessment. It is likely that the delayed diagnosis of interval cancers confers a 4% reduction in ten-year survival.

Ethnic and age differences in right-left breast asymmetry in a large population-based screening population.

OBJECTIVE: Exposure to sex hormones is important in the pathogenesis of breast cancer and inability to tolerate such exposure may be reflected in increased asymmetrical growth of the breasts. This study aims to characterize, for the first time, asymmetry in breast volume (BV) and radiodense volume (DV) in a large ethnically diverse population. METHODS: Automated measurements from digital raw mammographic images of 54,591 cancer-free participants (aged 47-73) in a UK breast screening programme were used to calculate absolute (cm3) and relative asymmetry in BV and DV. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess asymmetry associations with age and ethnicity. RESULTS: BV and DV absolute asymmetry were positively correlated with the corresponding volumetric dimension (BV or DV). BV absolute asymmetry increased, whilst DV absolute asymmetry decreased, with increasing age (P-for-linear-trend <0.001 for both). Relative to Whites, Blacks had statistically significantly higher, and Chinese lower, BV and DV absolute asymmetries. However, after adjustment for the corresponding underlying volumetric dimension the age and ethnic differences were greatly attenuated. Median relative (fluctuating) BV and DV asymmetry were 2.34 and 3.28% respectively. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for the relevant volumetric dimension (BV or DV), age and ethnic differences in absolute breast asymmetry were largely resolved. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Previous small studies have reported breast asymmetry-breast cancer associations. Automated measurements of asymmetry allow the conduct of large-scale studies to further investigate these associations.

The B3 conundrum-the radiologists' perspective.

The management of B3 lesions is both controversial and complicated. There have been recent publications regarding how best to manage this heterogeneous group particularly in light of the Marmot Review and with the advent of vacuum-assisted biopsy technique. It is recognized that B3 lesions on core biopsy can be upgraded to malignancy in up to one-third of cases, but this is predominantly to ductal carcinoma in situ or low-grade invasive tumours. The upgrade rate is mainly associated with B3 lesions with epithelial atypia. This review summarizes the current management and focuses on the proposed future management of these B3 lesions.

Breast density across a regional screening population: effects of age, ethnicity and deprivation.

OBJECTIVE: Breast density (BD) is a recognized risk factor for breast cancer. This study maps density variation across a screening population and identifies demographic distinctions, which may affect density and so impact on cancer development/detection. We focus on the relationship between age, ethnicity and socioeconomic status on density. METHODS: This retrospective study on a screening population adheres to local patient confidentiality requirements. BD data from screening mammograms (March 2013 to September 2014) were measured using Volpara((®))Density(™) software (Volpara((®))Solutions(™), Wellington, New Zealand). Demographics, including patient age, ethnicity and deprivation index, were obtained from our breast screening database and analysed with respect to breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV), Volpara %BD and Volpara Grade (1-4 scale, lowest to highest). RESULTS: Study population demonstrates little difference for BV with respect to age, but a slight negative trend was noted when FGV was evaluated vs age. Density was linked to ethnicity: females of Chinese ethnicity had higher BD largely reflecting their lower BV. Females in the most deprived quintiles tended to have larger and therefore less dense breasts. CONCLUSION: Our mapping of BD in a regional screening programme demonstrates impact of age, ethnicity and socioeconomic status on BD with attendant implications for breast cancer risk. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: BD is a known risk factor for development of breast cancer. Density trends in a large regional screening population with respect to age, ethnicity and socioeconomics may eventually help identify the risk of breast cancer in certain subsets of the population.

Localized fibroglandular tissue as a predictor of future tumor location within the breast.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density (MD) is a strong marker of breast cancer risk, but it is unclear whether tumors arise specifically within dense tissue. METHODS: In 231 British women diagnosed with breast cancer after at least one negative annual screening during a mammographic screening trial, we assessed whether tumor location was related to localized MD 5 years prior to diagnosis. Radiologists identified tumor locations on digitised films. We used a validated algorithm to align serial images from the same woman to locate the corresponding point on the prediagnostic film. A virtual 1 cm square grid was overlaid on prediagnostic films and MD calculated for each square within a woman's breast (mean = 271 squares/film). Conditional logistic regression, matching on a woman's breast, was used to estimate the odds of a tumor arising in a square in relation to its prediagnostic square-specific MD. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) prediagnostic MD was 98.2% (46.8%-100%) in 1 cm-squares that subsequently contained the tumor and 41.0% (31.5%-53.9%) for the whole breast. The odds of a tumor arising in a 1 cm-square were, respectively, 6.1 (95% CI: 1.9-20.1), 16.6 (5.2-53.2), and 25.5-fold (8.1-80.3) higher for squares in the second, third, and fourth quartiles of prediagnostic MD relative to those in the lowest quartile within that breast (P(trend) < 0.001). The corresponding odds ratios were 2.3 (1.3-4.0), 3.9 (2.3-6.4), and 4.6 (2.8-7.6) if a 3 cm-square grid was used. CONCLUSION: Tumors arise predominantly within the radiodense breast tissue. IMPACT: Localized MD may be used as a predictor of subsequent tumor location within the breast.

Automated registration of diagnostic to prediagnostic x-ray mammograms: evaluation and comparison to radiologists' accuracy.

PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate intensity-based registration methods for computation of serial x-ray mammogram correspondence. METHODS: X-ray mammograms were simulated from MRIs of 20 women using finite element methods for modeling breast compressions and employing a MRI/x-ray appearance change model. The parameter configurations of three registration methods, affine, fluid, and free-form deformation (FFD), were optimized for registering x-ray mammograms on these simulated images. Five mammography film readers independently identified landmarks (tumor, nipple, and usually two other normal features) on pairs of diagnostic and corresponding prediagnostic digitized images from 52 breast cancer cases. Landmarks were independently reidentified by each reader. Target registration errors were calculated to compare the three registration methods using the reader landmarks as a gold standard. Data were analyzed using multilevel methods. RESULTS: Between-reader variability varied with landmark (p < 0.01) and screen (p = 0.03), with between-reader mean distance (mm) in point location on the diagnostic/prediagnostic images of 2.50 (95% CI 1.95, 3.15)/2.84 (2.24, 3.55) for nipples and 4.26 (3.43, 5.24)/4.76 (3.85, 5.84) for tumors. Registration accuracy was sensitive to the type of landmark and the amount of breast density. For dense breasts (> or = 40%), the affine and fluid methods outperformed FFD. For breasts with lower density, the affine registration surpassed both fluid and FFD. Mean accuracy (mm) of the affine registration varied between 3.16 (95% CI 2.56, 3.90) for nipple points in breasts with density 20%-39% and 5.73 (4.80, 6.84) for tumor points in breasts with density < 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Affine registration accuracy was comparable to that between independent film readers. More advanced two-dimensional nonrigid registration algorithms were incapable of increasing the accuracy of image alignment when compared to affine registration.