Radial Scars on Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Upstaging Rates and Management Strategies.

Background: Radial scars are more commonly identified on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) than on digital mammography (DM). Nonetheless, universal guidelines for radial scar management in the current era of DBT are lacking. Objective: To determine the upstaging rates of screening DBT-detected radial scars with and without atypia and to identify features related to upstaging risk. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent core-needle biopsy (CNB) showing a radial scar after screening DBT and DM from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. Patients without surgical excision or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up after CNB were excluded. Rates of upstaging to breast cancer [ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive disease] were compared between radial scars with and without atypia at CNB. Associations of upstaging with patient, imaging, and pathologic variables were explored using standard statistical tests. Results: Of 165 women with 171 radial scars, the final study sample included 153 women (mean age, 56 years; range, 33-83 years) with 159 radial scars that underwent surgical excision (80.5%, 128/159) or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up (19.5%, 31/159). Seven radial scars were upstaged to DCIS and one to invasive disease. Therefore, the upstaging rate of radial scars to cancer was 5.0% (8/159). The upstaging rate of radial scars without atypia at CNB was 1.6% (2/129) and of radial scars with atypia was 20.0% (6/30) (p<.001). On multivariable analysis, features associated with higher upstaging risk included a prior breast cancer diagnosis (62.5% vs 4.8%, p=.01) and the presence of atypia at CNB (75.0% vs 15.9%, p=.02). The upstaging rate according to mammographic finding type was 7.1% (1/14) for asymmetries, 6.7% (1/15) for masses, 6.3% (6/96) for architectural distortion, and 0.0% (0/34) for calcifications. Conclusion: Screening-detected radial scars without atypia at CNB have a low upstaging rate to breast cancer of 1.6%. Clinical Impact: Imaging surveillance rather than surgery is a reasonable approach for radial scars without atypia, particularly for those presenting as calcifications.

Evaluating the Use of ChatGPT to Accurately Simplify Patient-centered Information about Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening.

Purpose To evaluate the use of ChatGPT as a tool to simplify answers to common questions about breast cancer prevention and screening. Materials and Methods In this retrospective, exploratory study, ChatGPT was requested to simplify responses to 25 questions about breast cancer to a sixth-grade reading level in March and August 2023. Simplified responses were evaluated for clinical appropriateness. All original and simplified responses were assessed for reading ease on the Flesch Reading Ease Index and for readability on five scales: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (ie, SMOG) Index. Mean reading ease, readability, and word count were compared between original and simplified responses using paired t tests. McNemar test was used to compare the proportion of responses with adequate reading ease (score of 60 or greater) and readability (sixth-grade level). Results ChatGPT improved mean reading ease (original responses, 46 vs simplified responses, 70; P < .001) and readability (original, grade 13 vs simplified, grade 8.9; P < .001) and decreased word count (original, 193 vs simplified, 173; P < .001). Ninety-two percent (23 of 25) of simplified responses were considered clinically appropriate. All 25 (100%) simplified responses met criteria for adequate reading ease, compared with only two of 25 original responses (P < .001). Two of the 25 simplified responses (8%) met criteria for adequate readability. Conclusion ChatGPT simplified answers to common breast cancer screening and prevention questions by improving the readability by four grade levels, though the potential to produce incorrect information necessitates physician oversight when using this tool. Keywords: Mammography, Screening, Informatics, Breast, Education, Health Policy and Practice, Oncology, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023.

Artificial Intelligence for Breast Ultrasound: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Breast ultrasound is used in a wide variety of clinical scenarios, including both diagnostic and screening applications. Limitations of ultrasound, however, include its low specificity and, for automated breast ultrasound screening, the time necessary to review whole-breast ultrasound images. As of this writing, four AI tools that are approved or cleared by the FDA address these limitations. Current tools, which are intended to provide decision support for lesion classification and/or detection, have been shown to increase specificity among non-specialists and to decrease interpretation times. Potential future applications include triage of patients with palpable masses in low-resource settings, preoperative prediction of axillary lymph node metastasis, and preoperative prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Challenges in the development and clinical deployment of AI for ultrasound include: the limited availability of curated training datasets compared to mammography; the high variability in ultrasound image acquisition due to equipment- and operator-related factors (which may limit algorithm generalizability); and the lack of post-implementation evaluation studies. Furthermore, current AI tools for lesion classification were developed based on 2D data, but diagnostic accuracy could potentially be improved if multimodal ultrasound data were used, such as color Doppler, elastography, cine clips, and 3D imaging.

Performance Metrics of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Based on Years Since a Prior Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND. Mammography surveillance protocols after breast cancer treatment vary widely. Some practices recommend performing diagnostic mammography for a certain number of years or indefinitely, whereas others recommend returning immediately to screening. OBJECTIVE. This study's objective was to determine performance metrics of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients who resume screening mammography immediately after breast cancer treatment, based on the number of years since the breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS. This retrospective study included screening DBT examinations performed from January 2013 to June 2019 in patients who resumed screening mammography immediately after a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between screening performance metrics and years since the prior breast cancer diagnosis, controlling for age, race and ethnicity, breast density, presence of a prior screening mammogram, and interpreting radiologist. RESULTS. The study included 8090 patients (mean age, 65 ± 11 [SD] years) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis who underwent 30,812 screening DBT examinations during the study period. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 8.6 per 1000 examinations (265/30,812), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 5.7% (1750/30,812), PPV1 was 15.1% (265/1750), sensitivity was 80.3% (265/330), specificity was 95.1% (28,997/30,482), and false-negative rate was 2.1 per 1000 examinations (65/30,812). CDR showed a significant independent positive association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p < .001), being lowest more than 2 to up to 3 years after diagnosis (4.9 per 1000 examinations) and highest more than 8 to up to 9 years after diagnosis (11.2 per 1000 examinations). AIR showed a significant independent negative association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; p = .01), being highest 1 year or less after diagnosis (7.5%) and lowest more than 5 to up to 6 years after diagnosis (5.0%). CONCLUSION. Among 8090 patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis, even though the AIR was higher during the year after diagnosis compared with subsequent years, the AIR remained acceptably low (< 10%) in all years. CLINICAL IMPACT. These results support the study institution's mammographic surveillance protocol for patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis of returning immediately to DBT screening.

Prediction of Surgical Upstaging Risk of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Machine Learning Models.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to build machine learning models to predict surgical upstaging risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive cancer and to compare model performance to eligibility criteria used by the Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy (COMET) active surveillance trial. Methods: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed of all women with DCIS at core-needle biopsy who underwent surgery from 2007 to 2016 at an academic medical center. Multivariable regression and machine learning models were developed to evaluate upstaging-related features and their performance was compared with that achieved using the COMET trial eligibility criteria. Results: Of 1387 women (mean age, 57 years; range, 27-89 years), the upstaging rate of DCIS was 17% (235/1387). On multivariable analysis, upstaging-associated features were presentation of DCIS as a palpable area of concern, imaging finding of a mass, and nuclear grades 2 or 3 at biopsy (P < 0.05). If COMET trial eligibility criteria were applied to our study cohort, then 496 women (42%, 496/1175) would have been eligible for the trial, with an upstaging rate of 12% (61/496). Of the machine learning models, none had a significantly lower upstaging rate than 12%. However, if using the models to determine eligibility, then a significantly larger proportion of women (56%-87%) would have been eligible for active surveillance. Conclusion: Use of machine learning models to determine eligibility for the COMET trial identified a larger proportion of women eligible for surveillance compared with current eligibility criteria while maintaining similar upstaging rates.

Management of screening-detected lobular neoplasia in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: A preliminary study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine upgrade rates of lobular neoplasia detected by screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to determine imaging and clinicopathological features that may influence risk of upgrade. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed of consecutive women who presented with screening DBT-detected atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and/or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2020. Included patients underwent needle biopsy and had surgery or at least two-year imaging follow-up. Imaging and clinicopathological features were compared between upgraded and nonupgraded cases of lobular neoplasia using the Pearson's chi-squared test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: During the study period, 107 women (mean age 55 years, range 40-88 years) with 110 cases of ALH and/or LCIS underwent surgery (80.9%, n = 89) or at least two-year imaging follow-up (19.1%, n = 21). The overall upgrade rate to cancer was 5.5% (6/110), and the upgrade rate to invasive cancer was 3.6% (4/110). The upgrade rate of ALH to cancer was 4.1% (3/74), whereas the upgrade rate of LCIS to cancer was 9.4% (3/32) (p = .28). The upgrade rate of cases presenting as calcifications was 4.2% (3/71), whereas the upgrade rates of cases presenting as noncalcified findings was 7.7% (3/39) (p = .44). CONCLUSIONS: The upgrade rate of screening DBT-detected lobular neoplasia is less than 6%. Surveillance rather than surgery can be considered for lobular neoplasia, particularly in patients with ALH and in those with screening-detected calcifications leading to the diagnosis.

Ipsilateral tumor recurrence risk in women with ductal carcinoma in situ: application of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram.

PURPOSE: To apply the Van Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) nomogram to DCIS patients with known long-term outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients diagnosed with DCIS from 2007 to 2014. Included patients underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and were followed with imaging for at least five years. For each patient, the VNPI and MSKCC nomogram risk estimates were determined. In addition, variables used in both models were compared between women with and without recurrences using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Over the eight-year period, 456 women (average age 57 years, range 30-87) underwent BCS for DCIS. Thirty-one (6.8%) experienced an ipsilateral recurrence. The average VNPI scores were 7 (range 5-9) and 7 (range 4-10) for women with and without a recurrence (p = 0.14), respectively, with 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 being the low, moderate, and high-risk groups, respectively. Per the MSKCC nomogram, the average five-year recurrence risks were 5% (range 1-12%) and 4% (range 1-38%) for women with and without a recurrence (p = 0.09), respectively. The recurrence risk-related variables were younger patient age, need for one or more re-excision surgeries, and use of endocrine therapy for 0 to less than five years after surgery. CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral tumor recurrence risk estimates based on the VNPI and MSKCC nomogram are similar between women with DCIS who did and did not have a recurrence, suggesting that more robust prognostic models are needed.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article.

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Implementation Considerations and Barriers.

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has led to Food and Drug Administration clearance of more than 20 AI algorithms for breast imaging. The steps involved in the clinical implementation of an AI product include identifying all stakeholders, selecting the appropriate product to purchase, evaluating it with a local data set, integrating it into the workflow, and monitoring its performance over time. Despite the potential benefits of improved quality and increased efficiency with AI, several barriers, such as high costs and liability concerns, may limit its widespread implementation. This article lists currently available AI products for breast imaging, describes the key elements of clinical implementation, and discusses barriers to clinical implementation.

Predicting ipsilateral recurrence in women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ using machine learning and multivariable logistic regression models.

PURPOSE: To develop machine learning (ML) and multivariable regression models to predict ipsilateral breast event (IBE) risk after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treatment. METHODS: A retrospective investigation was conducted of patients diagnosed with DCIS from 2007 to 2014 who were followed for a minimum of five years after treatment. Data about each patient were extracted from the medical records. Two ML models (penalized logistic regression and random forest) and a multivariable logistic regression model were developed to evaluate recurrence-related variables. RESULTS: 650 women (mean age 56 years, range 27-87 years) underwent treatment for DCIS and were followed for at least five years after treatment (mean 8.0 years). 5.5% (n = 36) experienced an IBE. With multivariable analysis, the variables associated with higher IBE risk were younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, p = 0.02), dense breasts at mammography (aOR 3.02, p = 0.02), and < 5 years of endocrine therapy (aOR 4.48, p = 0.02). The multivariable regression model to predict IBE risk achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.84). The penalized logistic regression and random forest models achieved mean AUCs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.61) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.65), respectively. CONCLUSION: Variables associated with higher IBE risk after DCIS treatment include younger age, dense breasts, and <5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The multivariable logistic regression model attained the highest AUC (0.75), suggesting that regression models have a critical role in risk prediction for patients with DCIS.

Screening MRI in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: An Update of the Recent Literature.

Guidelines issued by the American Cancer Society (ACS) in 2007 recommend neither for nor against screening MRI in women at intermediate breast cancer risk (15%-20%), including those with dense breast tissue, a history of lobular neoplasia or atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or a prior breast cancer, because of scarce supporting evidence about the utility of MRI in these specific patient populations. However, since the issuance of the ACS guidelines in 2007, multiple investigations have found that women at intermediate risk may be suitable candidates for screening MRI, given the high detection rates of early-stage cancers and acceptable false-positive rates. For women with dense breast tissue, the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening trial reported that the incremental cancer detection rate (CDR) by MRI exceeded 16 cancers per 1000 examinations but decreased in the second round of screening; this decrease in CDR, however, occurred alongside a marked decrease in the false-positive rate. For women with lobular neoplasia or ADH, single-institution retrospective analyses have shown CDRs mostly ranging from 11 to 16 cancers per 1000 MRI examinations, with women with lobular carcinoma in situ benefitting more than women with atypical lobular hyperplasia or ADH. For patients with a prior breast cancer, the cancer yield by MRI varies widely but mostly ranges from 8 to 20 cancers per 1000 examinations, with certain subpopulations more likely to benefit, such as those with dense breasts. This article reviews and summarizes more recent studies on MRI screening of intermediate-risk women.

Updates in Artificial Intelligence for Breast Imaging.

Artificial intelligence (AI) for breast imaging has rapidly moved from the experimental to implementation phase. As of this writing, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved mammographic applications are available for triage, lesion detection and classification, and breast density assessment. For sonography and MRI, FDA-approved applications are available for lesion classification. Numerous other interpretive and noninterpretive AI applications are in the development phase. This article reviews AI applications for mammography, sonography, and MRI that are currently available for clinical use. In addition, clinical implementation and the future of AI for breast imaging are discussed.