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.

Appropriateness of Information Provided by ChatGPT Regarding Breast Pathologic Diagnoses.

A multidisciplinary physician team rated information provided by ChatGPT regarding breast pathologic diagnoses. ChatGPT responses were mostly appropriate regarding accuracy, consistency, definitions provided, and clinical significance conveyed. Responses were scored lower in terms of management recommendations provided, primarily related to low agreement with recommendations for high-risk lesions.

Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and timeliness of diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening mammogram in the ACR's National Mammography Database. METHODS: Abnormal screening mammograms (BI-RADS 0 assessment) in the National Mammography Database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2021, were retrospectively identified. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic evaluation and biopsy were assessed and compared across patient and facility demographics. RESULTS: Among the 2,874,310 screening mammograms reported as abnormal, follow-up was documented in 66.4% (n = 1,909,326). Lower follow-up rates were observed in younger women (59.4% in women < 30 years, 63.2% in women 30-39 years), Black (57.4%) and American Indian (59.5%) women, and women with no breast cancer family history (63.0%). The overall median time to diagnostic evaluation was 9 days. Longer median diagnostic evaluation time was noted in Black (14 days), other or mixed race (14 days), and Hispanic women (13 days). Of the 318,977 recalled screening mammograms recommended for biopsy, 238,556 (74.8%) biopsies were documented. Lower biopsy rates were noted in older women (71.5% in women aged ≥80) and Black (71.5%) and American Indian (52.2%) women. The overall median time from diagnostic evaluation to biopsy was 21 days. Longer median biopsy time was noted in older (23 days aged ≥80), Black (25 days), mixed or other race (26 days), and Hispanic women (23 days), and rural (24 days) or community hospital affiliated facilities (22 days). DISCUSSION: There is variability in the rates and timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and biopsy in women with abnormal screening mammogram. Subsets of women and facilities could benefit from targeted interventions to promote timely diagnostic resolution and biopsy after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Clinical and Imaging Features of MRI Screen-Detected Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental screening with breast MRI is recommended annually for patients who have greater than 20% lifetime risk for breast cancer. While there is robust data regarding features of mammographic screen-detected breast cancers, there is limited data regarding MRI-screen-detected cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Screening breast MRIs performed between August 1, 2016 and July 30, 2022 identified 50 screen-detected breast cancers in 47 patients. Clinical and imaging features of all eligible cancers were recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 50 MRI-screen detected cancers were identified in 47 patients. The majority of MRI-screen detected cancers (32/50, 64%) were invasive. Pathology revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 36% (18/50), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 52% (26/50), invasive lobular carcinoma in 10% (5/50), and angiosarcoma in 2% (1/50). The majority of patients (43/47, 91%) were stage 0 or 1 at diagnosis and there were no breast cancer-related deaths during the follow-up periods. Cancers presented as masses in 50% (25/50), nonmass enhancement in 48% (25/50), and a focus in 2% (1/50). DCIS was more likely to present as nonmass enhancement (94.4%, 17/18), whereas invasive cancers were more likely to present as masses (75%, 24/32) (P < .001). All cancers that were stage 2 at diagnosis were detected either on a baseline exam or more than 4 years since the prior MRI exam. CONCLUSION: MRI screen-detected breast cancers were most often invasive cancers. Cancers detected by MRI screening had an excellent prognosis in our study population. Invasive cancers most commonly presented as a mass.

Comparison of Diagnostic Mammography-Guided Biopsy and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Suspicious Breast Calcifications: Results in 1354 Biopsies.

BACKGROUND. Studies have shown improved targeting and sampling of noncalcified lesions (asymmetries, masses, and architectural distortion) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided biopsy in comparison with digital mammography (DM)-guided stereotactic biopsy. Literature that compares the two techniques specifically for sampling calcifications has been scarce. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance and outcomes of DM- and DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1310 patients (mean age, 58 ± 12 [SD] years) who underwent a total of 1354 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsies of suspicious calcifications performed at a single institution from May 22, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The decision to use a DM-guided or DBT-guided technique was made at the discretion of the radiologist performing the biopsy. Procedure time, the number of exposures during the procedure, and the histopathologic outcomes were recorded. The two techniques were compared using a two-sample t test for continuous variables and a chi-square test for categoric variables. Additional tests were performed using generalized estimating equations to control for the effect of the individual radiologist performing the biopsy. RESULTS. A total of 348 (26%) biopsies used DM guidance, and 1006 (74%) used DBT guidance. The mean procedure time was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (14.9 ± 8.0 [SD] minutes) than for DM-guided biopsy (24.7 ± 14.3 minutes) (p < .001). The mean number of exposures was significantly lower for DBT-guided biopsy (4.1 ± 1.0 [SD] exposures) than for DM-guided biopsy (9.1 ± 3.3 exposures) (p < .001). The differences in procedure time and number of exposures remained significant (both p < .001) when controlling for the effect of the radiologist performing the biopsy. There were no significant differences (all p > .05) between DM-guided and DBT-guided biopsy in terms of the malignancy rate on initial biopsy (20% vs 19%), the rate of high-risk lesion upgrading (14% vs 22%), or the final malignancy rate (23% vs 22%). CONCLUSION. DBT-guided biopsy of suspicious calcifications can be performed with shorter procedure time and fewer exposures compared with DM-guided biopsy, without a significant difference in rates of malignancy or high-risk lesion upgrading. CLINICAL IMPACT. The use of a DBT-guided, rather than a DM-guided, biopsy technique for suspicious calcifications can potentially reduce patient discomfort and radiation exposure without affecting clinical outcomes.

Axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI following COVID-19 vaccination: outcomes and follow-up recommendations.

This retrospective study presents 110 patients with suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary adenopathy on breast MRI. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI performed within one year after COVID-19 vaccination. The median time between the COVID-19 vaccine and breast MRI was shorter in patients with detected adenopathy compared to patients without detected adenopathy (6 weeks [2-17] versus 15 [7-24] weeks, p < 0.001). Unilateral axillary adenopathy detected on breast MRI had a low malignancy rate (3.3%), and no cases of malignant axillary adenopathy were diagnosed without a known breast cancer in the ipsilateral breast. Our findings suggest that unilateral axillary adenopathy identified on breast MRI ipsilateral to a recent COVID-19 vaccination can be considered benign in the absence of a suspicious breast finding or known breast cancer. Regardless of vaccine status and timing, unilateral axillary adenopathy detected on MRI evaluation with a known malignancy or suspicious breast finding should be considered suspicious. This will avoid unnecessary scheduling constraints, patient anxiety, and cost, without delaying diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer.

Impact of Patient Navigation on Reducing Breast Imaging Disparities and Applications in the COVID-19 Era.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted breast cancer screening with concerns that this may lead to increased overall breast cancer mortality and worsened racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer survival. As pandemic recovery efforts are underway, we must be prepared to address barriers to timely access of breast imaging services, including those that existed prior to the pandemic, as well as any new barriers that may arise as a result of the pandemic. Patient navigation is an important tool that has been shown to address barriers to timely breast imaging access and help reduce disparities. Patient navigation programs can serve as a key part of the strategy to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on timely breast cancer diagnosis. These programs have been shown to be successful in promoting adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines as well as encouraging timely diagnostic follow-up, particularly in underserved communities. Further research is needed to explore the role of using a telehealth platform for patient navigation and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of patient navigator programs as well as more randomized controlled trials to further explore the impact of patient navigation programs.

Circumscribed Masses on Breast MRI: Can MRI Features Guide Management?

OBJECTIVE: Management of circumscribed breast masses seen on MRI is largely extrapolated from mammography and US data with limited MRI-specific data available. This study aimed to assess clinical and MRI imaging features of malignant circumscribed breast masses. METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, breast MRIs performed between April 1, 2008, and August 30, 2020, containing circumscribed masses, excluding multiple bilateral circumscribed masses, were reviewed. Clinical and imaging features of all eligible masses were recorded, and associations with malignant outcomes were assessed using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, with P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: For the 165 masses that met study criteria in 158 women, the mean age was 48 years (SD 12.0 years). Nine of 165 masses were malignant (5.5%). Round masses were significantly more likely to be malignant (7/37, 18.9%) compared to oval masses (2/128, 1.7%) (P < 0.001). Among masses with available dynamic contrast kinetics data, the malignancy rate was 0/84 (0%) for persistent kinetics, 2/23 (8.7%) for plateau kinetics, and 4/24 (16.7%) for washout kinetics (P = 0.002). The malignancy rate for oval masses without washout kinetics was 0% (0/92). T2 hyperintense masses had a malignancy rate of 7/104 (6.7%), and homogeneously enhancing masses had a malignancy rate of 5/91 (5.5%). CONCLUSION: These data support the use of mass shape and dynamic contrast enhancement kinetics to guide management of circumscribed breast masses seen by MRI, with oval masses without washout kinetics and any circumscribed mass with persistent kinetics showing no malignancies in this study.

High-risk lesions in the breast diagnosed by MRI-guided core biopsy: upgrade rates and features associated with malignancy.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the upgrade rates of high-risk lesions (HRLs) in the breast diagnosed by MRI-guided core biopsy and evaluated imaging and clinical features associated with upgrade to malignancy. METHODS: This IRB-approved, retrospective study included MRI-guided breast biopsy exams yielding HRLs from August 1, 2011, to August 31, 2020. HRLs included atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), radial scar, and papilloma. Only lesions that underwent excision or at least 2 years of MRI imaging follow-up were included. For each HRL, patient history, imaging features, and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-two lesions in 65 patients were included in the study, with 8/72 (11.1%) of the lesions upgraded to malignancy. Upgrade rates were 16.7% (2/12) for ADH, 100% (1/1) for pleomorphic LCIS, 40% (2/5) for other LCIS, 0% (0/19) for ALH, 0% (0/18) for papilloma, and 0% (0/7) for radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion. Additionally, two cases of marked ADH bordering on DCIS and one case of marked ALH bordering on LCIS, were upgraded. Lesions were more likely to be upgraded if they presented as T2 hypointense (versus isotense, OR 6.46, 95% CI 1.27-32.92) or as linear or segmental non-mass enhancement (NME, versus focal or regional, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our data support the recommendation that ADH and LCIS on MRI-guided biopsy warrant surgical excision due to high upgrade rates. HRLs that present as T2 hypointense, or as linear or segmental NME, should be viewed with suspicion as these were associated with higher upgrade rates to malignancy.

Comparison of emergency pediatric breast ultrasound interpretations and management recommendations between pediatric radiologists and breast imaging radiologists.

PURPOSE: Pediatric patients with breast-related symptoms often initially present to the emergency department for evaluation. While pediatric radiologists are accustomed to evaluating acute infectious and traumatic etiologies, they may be less familiar with breast-specific findings. This study compares management recommendations of pediatric breast ultrasounds performed in the emergency setting between pediatric and breast imaging radiologists. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from all pediatric breast ultrasounds performed in the emergency setting from a single academic institution from 1/1/14 to 12/31/19. During the study period, 12 pediatric radiologists with experience ranging from 1 to 33 years interpreted pediatric breast ultrasounds. Three breast imaging radiologists (with 3, 8, and 25 years of experience) retrospectively reviewed each case and recorded whether further management was recommended. Differences in recommendations were compared using Fisher's exact test. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between subspecialty radiologists. RESULTS: This study included 75 pediatric patients, with mean age 13 ± 5.6 years and malignancy rate of 1.3% (1/75). Pediatric radiologists and the most experienced breast imaging radiologist had moderate agreement in management recommendations (k = 0.54). There was no significant difference in recommendations for further management between pediatric radiologists (22/75 [29.3%]) and the most experienced breast imaging radiologist (15/75 [20.0%]), p = 0.26. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for pediatric breast complaints in the emergency setting are comparable between subspecialties.

Outcomes of Canceled Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Architectural Distortion Due to Nonvisualization.

Objective: Architectural distortion without a sonographic correlate is an indication for digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (DBT-VAB). However, when the finding is not visualized on the day of biopsy, the procedure is canceled. This study reports the outcomes of canceled DBT-VAB of architectural distortion due to nonvisualization. Methods: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, chart review was performed to identify DBT-VABs of architectural distortion at our institution between June 1, 2017, and November 1, 2020, that were canceled because of nonvisualization at the time of biopsy. Cases without follow-up imaging were excluded. Statistical analysis, including the frequency of cases yielding malignancy by the end of the study period, was performed. Results: In total, 7.2% (39/544) of architectural distortions recommended for biopsy during the study period were canceled because of nonvisualization, 30 of which had follow-up imaging and were included in the study. Mean patient age was 56 years (standard deviation [SD], 9.6 years) and mean follow-up time was 26.7 months (SD, 11.2 months; range, 8.4-50.9 months). During the follow-up period, 16.7% (5/30) underwent repeat biopsy attempt, with one malignant result (1/30, 3.3%; SD, 18%; 95% confidence interval: 0.6%-16.7%). In total, 86.7% (26/30) of cases were declared benign during the follow-up period and 10% (3/30) remained stable with a BI-RADS 3 assessment category. Conclusion: During available follow-up, there was a low likelihood that distortions not visualized at the time of DBT-VAB represented malignancy (3.3%, 1/30). While this low malignancy rate is reassuring, imaging follow-up is warranted.

Artificial Intelligence for Reducing Workload in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has higher diagnostic accuracy than digital mammography, but interpretation time is substantially longer. Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve reading efficiency. Purpose To evaluate the use of AI to reduce workload by filtering out normal DBT screens. Materials and Methods The retrospective study included 13 306 DBT examinations from 9919 women performed between June 2013 and November 2018 from two health care networks. The cohort was split into training, validation, and test sets (3948, 1661, and 4310 women, respectively). A workflow was simulated in which the AI model classified cancer-free examinations that could be dismissed from the screening worklist and used the original radiologists' interpretations on the rest of the worklist examinations. The AI system was also evaluated with a reader study of five breast radiologists reading the DBT mammograms of 205 women. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate were evaluated in both studies. Statistics were computed across 10 000 bootstrap samples to assess 95% CIs, noninferiority, and superiority tests. Results The model was tested on 4310 screened women (mean age, 60 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; 5182 DBT examinations). Compared with the radiologists' performance (417 of 459 detected cancers [90.8%], 477 recalls in 5182 examinations [9.2%]), the use of AI to automatically filter out cases would result in 39.6% less workload, noninferior sensitivity (413 of 459 detected cancers; 90.0%; P = .002), and 25% lower recall rate (358 recalls in 5182 examinations; 6.9%; P = .002). In the reader study, AUC was higher in the standalone AI compared with the mean reader (0.84 vs 0.81; P = .002). Conclusion The artificial intelligence model was able to identify normal digital breast tomosynthesis screening examinations, which decreased the number of examinations that required radiologist interpretation in a simulated clinical workflow. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Diversity and Inclusion in Breast Imaging and Radiology at Large: What Can We Do to Improve?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A racially and ethnically diverse healthcare workforce leads to increased access to care and better health outcomes. Radiology and specifically the patient-centered subspecialty of breast imaging have a growing mismatch between the demographics of the physician workforce and the patient population served. Identifying and addressing the barriers for diversity is imperative in order to decrease disparities in breast cancer morbidity and mortality and achieve excellence in patient care. RECENT FINDINGS: Three major barriers to promoting diversity and inclusion in the field of breast imaging and in the specialty of radiology more generally are unconscious bias, lack of mentorship for underrepresented minority (URM) students, and career development challenges facing women in radiology. We focus on these three issues and provide suggestions for addressing each of them. SUMMARY: Tackling unconscious bias through encouraging individual accountability and establishing implicit bias programs at the institutional level, supporting both formal and informal mentorship opportunities for URMs, and creating an environment to support women in leadership will bring us one step closer to fostering a diverse and inclusive breast imaging workforce and meeting the healthcare needs of the diverse US population.

Presentation and characteristics of breast cancer in young women under age 40.

PURPOSE: Although uncommon, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in young women. There are limited studies on the presentation and characteristics of breast cancer in women under age 40. METHODS: This is a retrospective study investigating patient demographics, clinical presentations, imaging findings, and cancer characteristics of a cohort of 145 women under age 40 with breast cancer. RESULTS: Our cohort had more aggressive cancer subtypes than reported in older women; 33.1% triple negative, 80% high Ki-67, and 21.3% with stage 3+ disease. Most were referred from primary care or obstetrician/gynecologist, though 5.5% initially presented from the emergency department and another 2.1% were incidental findings. 16.6% of patients presented while pregnant or breastfeeding. Most patients presented with breast related symptoms. Of the 9.1% of patients diagnosed through our high-risk screening program, 84.6% of the cancers were identified on mammography or simultaneously with mammography and MRI. Most breast cancers presented with typically worrisome imaging (82.6%), though several cancers presented with findings that were typically benign. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend prompt breast imaging for young women presenting with breast-related symptoms or an incidental breast finding, as younger patients have more aggressive cancer subtypes and are of a higher grade at presentation compared to older women. We also recommend vigilance when distinguishing suspicious symptoms from pregnancy-related breast changes to minimize delays in diagnosis. Additionally, it is important to identify patients who qualify for high risk screening, since cancers in screening patients were found at a lower grade than those presenting with symptoms.