Abbreviated Breast MRI for Supplemental Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Baseline Versus Subsequent-Round Examinations.

BACKGROUND. Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) achieves a higher cancer detection rate (CDR) than digital breast tomosynthesis when applied for baseline (i.e., first-round) supplemental screening of individuals with dense breasts. Limited literature has evaluated subsequent (i.e., sequential) AB-MRI screening rounds. OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to compare outcomes between baseline and subsequent rounds of screening AB-MRI in individuals with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer and underwent AB-MRI for supplemental screening between December 20, 2016, and May 10, 2023. The clinical interpretations and results of recommended biopsies for AB-MRI examinations were extracted from the EMR. Baseline and subsequent-round AB-MRI examinations were compared. RESULTS. The final sample included 2585 AB-MRI examinations (2007 baseline and 578 subsequent-round examinations) performed for supplemental screening of 2007 women (mean age, 57.1 years old) with dense breasts. Of 2007 baseline examinations, 1658 (82.6%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 171 (8.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 178 (8.9%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of 578 subsequent-round examinations, 533 (92.2%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 20 (3.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 25 (4.3%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (p < .001). The abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 17.4% (349/2007) for baseline examinations versus 7.8% (45/578) for subsequent-round examinations (p < .001). For baseline examinations, PPV2 was 21.3% (38/178), PPV3 was 26.6% (38/143), and the CDR was 18.9 cancers per 1000 examinations (38/2007). For subsequent-round examinations, PPV2 was 28.0% (7/25) (p = .45), PPV3 was 29.2% (7/24) (p = .81), and the CDR was 12.1 cancers per 1000 examinations (7/578) (p = .37). All 45 cancers diagnosed by baseline or subsequent-round AB-MRI were stage 0 or 1. Seven cancers diagnosed by subsequent-round AB-MRI had a mean interval of 872 ± 373 (SD) days since prior AB-MRI and node-negative status at surgical axillary evaluation; six had an invasive component, all measuring 1.2 cm or less. CONCLUSION. Subsequent rounds of AB-MRI screening of individuals with dense breasts had lower AIR than baseline examinations while maintaining a high CDR. All cancers detected by subsequent-round examinations were early-stage node-negative cancers. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support sequential AB-MRI for supplemental screening in individuals with dense breasts. Further investigations are warranted to optimize the screening interval.

Comparison of the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) recombinant images in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population. Material and methods: 792 patients with 808 breast lesions, in whom the final decision on core-needle biopsy was made based on CEM, and who received the result of histopathological examination, were qualified for a single-centre, retrospective study. Patient electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical and imaging findings, and histopathology results. The CEM images were reassessed and assigned to the appropriate American College of Radiology (ACR) density categories. Results: Extremely dense breasts were present in 86 (10.9%) patients. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of malignant lesions in 52.6% of cases in the entire group of patients and 43% in the group of extremely dense breasts. CEM incorrectly classified the lesion as false negative in 16/425 (3.8%) cases for the whole group, and in 1/37 (2.7%) cases for extremely dense breasts. The sensitivity of CEM for the group of all patients was 96.2%, specificity - 60%, positive predictive values (PPV) - 72.8%, and negative predictive values (NPV) - 93.5%. In the group of patients with extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of the method was 97.3%, specificity - 59.2%, PPV - 64.3%, and NPV - 96.7%. Conclusions: CEM is characterised by high sensitivity and NPV in detecting malignant lesions regardless of the type of breast density. In patients with extremely dense breasts, CEM could serve as a complementary or additional examination in the absence or low availability of MRI.

Association of breast cancer risk, density, and stiffness: global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography (MRE).

PURPOSE: Quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in average risk and high-risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association between breast biomechanical properties and cancer risk based on patient demographics and clinical data. METHODS: Patients with average risk or high-risk of breast cancer underwent 3.0 T breast MR imaging and elastography. Breast parenchymal enhancement (BPE), density (from most recent mammogram), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were recorded. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were compared across risk groups (average versus high). Separately for stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity, a multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate whether the MRE parameter predicted risk status after controlling for clinical factors. RESULTS: 50 average risk and 86 high-risk patients were included. Risk groups were similar in age, density, and menopausal status. Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high-risk patients (N = 55) compared to average risk patients (N = 34; all p < 0.001). Stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR = 4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for elasticity and viscosity. CONCLUSION: A structurally based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. Tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance and/or risk reduction measures.

Outcomes of Return to Routine Screening for BI-RADS 3 Lesions Detected at Supplemental Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound in Women With Dense Breasts: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. Supplemental screening breast ultrasound (US) detects additional cancers in women with dense breasts but identifies many BI-RADS 3 lesions that result in short-term follow-up and biopsies. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients recommended for return to routine screening for lesions assessed as BI-RADS 3 on supplemental automated whole-breast US. METHODS. This prospective study invited patients with BI-RADS 1 or 2 on screening mammography and breast density C or D to undergo supplemental automated breast US (ABUS). ABUS was interpreted as BI-RADS 1, 2, 3, or 0. Return to routine screening was recommended for ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2, or 3. ABUS BI-RADS 0 lesions underwent targeted handheld US. Remaining patients were followed for 2 years. Malignancy rates were compared using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS. A total of 2257 women (mean age, 58.0 ± 11.2 [SD] years) were included. Supplemental ABUS was scored as BI-RADS 1 in 1186 (52.5%) women, BI-RADS 2 in 591 (26.2%), BI-RADS 3 in 395 (17.5%), and BI-RADS 0 in 85 (3.8%). A total of 394 patients with ABUS BI-RADS 3 had 2-year follow-up, during which no cancer (0%; 95% CI, 0.0-0.9%) was diagnosed in the quadrant of the lesion. Among patients with 2-year follow-up, breast cancer was diagnosed in 4/1117 (0.4%) with ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2/556 (0.4%) with ABUS BI-RADS 2, and 2/394 (0.5%) with ABUS BI-RADS 3 (cancer in other quadrant than the lesion). Malignancy rates were not different between ABUS BI-RADS 1, 2, and 3 (p = .28). The ABUS recall rate was 3.8% (85/2257; 95% CI, 3.6-4.0%). If short-term follow-up had been recommended for ABUS BI-RADS 3, the ABUS recall rate would have been 21.3% (480/2257, 95% CI 19.6-23.0%). The biopsy rate was 0.5% (12/2257; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9%); the positive biopsy rate was 58.3% (7/12). One of seven cancers diagnosed by initial supplemental ABUS and none of eight cancers diagnosed during subsequent follow-up were node-positive cancer. CONCLUSION. Return to routine screening for ABUS BI-RADS 3 lesions results in a substantial decrease in recall rate and is unlikely to result in an adverse outcome. CLINICAL IMPACT. This prospective study supports a recommendation for routine annual follow-up for BI-RADS 3 lesions at supplemental ABUS. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02650778.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Patient-Reported Deterrents to Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening of Patients With Dense Breasts.

BACKGROUND. The success of adjunct breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts can be enhanced by identifying and addressing patient concerns regarding adjunct screening modalities. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to identify patient characteristics associated with patient-reported concerns about adjunct breast cancer screening to facilitate the development of a more effective screening model for women with dense breasts. METHODS. Patients with dense breasts completed surveys between March 2017 and February 2018 regarding factors that might deter them from adjunct screening and about which of three hypothetical screening examinations they might prefer. Additional patient data were extracted from medical records, and socioeconomic data were imputed from federal census data. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between patient characteristics and patient attitudes toward adjunct screening. RESULTS. Surveys were completed by 508 women (median age, 59.0 years) with dense breasts. Lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts was independently associated with lesser concern about adjunct screening examination time (1 divided by adjusted odds ratio [1/AOR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.89]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.85]), and greater preference for a more sensitive hypothetical screening examination (1/AOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.20-2.86]). Concern about examination cost, the most commonly cited deterrent to adjunct screening (66.9%), was independently associated with younger age (1/AOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.01-2.08]) but not with imputed socioeconomic variables or other tested variables. Younger age was also associated with lesser concern about pain (1/AOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.99]), additional imaging that could result (1/AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.76]), and IV contrast administration (1/AOR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.83]). CONCLUSION. Younger age and lower confidence in the sensitivity of mammography among women with dense breasts are independently associated with lesser patient concern about common deterrents to adjunct breast cancer screening. Younger age is independently associated with greater concern about the cost of undergoing adjunct breast cancer screening. CLINICAL IMPACT. Concerns about adjunct screening may be reduced by educating patients about the lower sensitivity of mammography of dense breasts and by finding ways to address or mitigate the financial and daily-life impact of adjunct screening, especially for younger patients.

Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI versus X-ray mammography in women with different degrees of breast density.

BACKGROUND: Detection of breast cancer in women with high breast densities is a clinical challenge. PURPOSE: To study the influence of different degrees of breast density on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) versus X-ray mammography (XRM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an additional analysis of two large Phase III clinical trials (G1; G2) which included women with histologically proven breast cancers, called "index cancers." Additional cancers were detected during image reading. We compared the sensitivity of CE-BMRI and XRM in women with different breast densities (ACR A→D; Version 5). For each study, six blinded readers evaluated the images. Results are given as the "Median Reader." RESULTS: A total of 774 patients were included, 169 had additional cancers. While sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting all index cancers was independent of breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 83%→83%; G2: 91%→91%) the sensitivity of XRM declined (ACR A→D) (G1: 79%→62%; G2: 82%→64%). Thus, the sensitivity difference between both imaging modalities in ACR A breasts of 3% (G1) and 9% (G2) increased to 21% (G1) and 26% (G2) in ACR D breasts. Sensitivity of CE-BMRI for detecting at least one additional cancer increased with increasing breast density (ACR A→D) (G1: 50%→73%, G2: 57%→81%). XRM's sensitivity decreased (G1: 34%→20%) or remained stable (G2: 24%→25%). CONCLUSION: CE-BMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity compared to XRM.

Molecular Breast Imaging in Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to review clinical uses and image interpretation of molecular breast imaging (MBI) and clarify radiation risks. CONCLUSION. MBI detects additional cancers compared with conventional imaging in women with dense breasts and those with elevated risk of breast cancer. Its role as an imaging biomarker of cancer risk and in assessing neoadjuvant chemotherapy response is growing. Radiation risk is minimal; benefit-to-risk ratio is similar to that of mammography. MBI is low cost, well tolerated, and easily adapted into clinical practice.

Non-contrast MRI for breast screening: preliminary study on detectability of benign and malignant lesions in women with dense breasts.

PURPOSE: The importance of breast cancer screening has long been known. Unfortunately, there is no imaging modality for screening women with dense breasts that is both sensitive and without concerns regarding potential side effects. The purpose of this study is to explore the possibility of combined diffusion-weighted imaging and turbo inversion recovery magnitude MRI (DWI + TIRM) to overcome the difficulty of detection sensitivity and safety. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-six breast lesions from 166 women with dense breasts were retrospectively evaluated. The lesion visibility, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection by MG, DWI + TIRM, and clinical MRI were evaluated and compared. MG plus clinical MRI served as the gold standard for lesion detection and pathology served as the gold standard for cancer detection. RESULTS: Lesion visibility of DWI + TIRM (96.6%) was significantly superior to MG (67.6%) in women with dense breasts (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference compared with clinical MRI. DWI + TIRM showed higher accuracy (AUC = 0.935) and sensitivity (93.68%) for breast cancer detection than MG (AUC = 0.783, sensitivity = 46.32%), but was comparable to clinical MRI (AUC = 0.944, sensitivity = 93.68%). The specificity of DWI + TIRM (83.95%) was lower than MG (98.77%), but higher than clinical MRI (77.78%). CONCLUSIONS: DWI combined with TIRM could be a safe, sensitive, and practical alternative for screening women with dense breasts.

Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare the yield of dense breast ultrasound (US) screening after digital mammography (DM) versus after digital breast tomosyn-thesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. For this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, we retrospectively searched databases at two tertiary breast imaging centers and an office practice staffed by the same fellowship-trained breast radiologists for screening US examinations from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016. Prior DM versus DBT and screening US and pathology results were recorded. Mammographically occult cancers detected with US and additional benign lesions requiring biopsy were calculated. Differences between DM and DBT were compared using the two-sample proportions z test. RESULTS. A total of 3183 screening breast US examinations were performed, 1434 (45.1%) after DM and 1668 (52.4%) after DBT. Of the 3183 examinations, 81 (2.5%) had no prior mammogram available. Of the 122 DM and DBT patients for whom biopsy or cyst aspiration was recommended (all BI-RADS assessment category 4 or BI-RADS assessment category 5 studies), 118 (96.7%) had biopsy or cyst aspiration results available. Of the 36 biopsies or aspirations after DM, 6 (16.7%) were malignant and 30 (83.3%) were benign; of the 82 biopsies or aspirations after DBT, 11 (13.4%) were malignant and 71 (86.6%) were benign (p = 0.8583). The additional cancer detection rate by US after DM was 5/1434 or 3.5 per 1000 women screened and after DBT was 5/1668 or 3.0 per 1000 women screened (p = 0.9999). CONCLUSION. No significant difference in additional cancer detection rate was found with screening US after DM versus after DBT.

Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts.

OBJECTIVE: To compare six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a substudy of the 'ASTOUND' trial. 163 women who underwent tomosynthesis with synthetically reconstructed projection images (S-2D) inclusive of 13 (7.9%) cases diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology after surgery were evaluated. Accuracy measures and screen-reading time of six reading strategies were assessed: (A) Single reading of S-2D alone, (B) single reading of tomosynthesis alone, (C) single reading of joint interpretation of tomosynthesis + S-2D, (D) double-reading of S-2D alone, (E) double reading of tomosynthesis alone, (F) double reading of joint interpretation of tomosynthesis + S-2D. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 53 years (range, 36-88 years). The highest global accuracy was obtained with double reading of tomosynthesis + S2D (F) with an AUC of 0.979 (p<0.001) and a mean reading time of 154 s versus 34 s for the fastest strategy (single reading of S-2D alone). The AUCs for the other five strategies did not differ from each other. CONCLUSION: Double reading of tomosynthesis+ S2D had the best accuracy of six screen-reading strategies although it had the longest reading time. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis acquisitions are progressively implemented with reconstructed synthesized 2D images • Double reading using S-2D plus tomosynthesis had the highest global accuracy (p<0.001). • Double reading of S-2D plus tomosynthesis increased reading time.

Dense Breast Notification and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of Current Strategies and Sentiments.

Dense breast parenchyma obscures breast lesions and has been shown to be an independent risk factor for development of breast cancer. An ever-increasing number of states have approved laws requiring patient notification of dense breast tissue. Reviews of supplemental screening imaging modalities are available, but there is no consensus and little discussion regarding what radiologists are specifically doing to manage patients with dense breasts. Our goal was to survey breast imagers facing these issues in an effort to simplify dense breast management. A survey was administered via email to the Society of Breast Imaging member directory, designed to collect information regarding current practices in dense breast notification and supplemental screening. There were 223 surveys completed to entirety, including 38% from respondents in states without mandatory breast density reporting laws and 62% from states with reporting laws. A majority of respondents from both groups, 60% and 51% in those without and with laws, respectively, felt they lacked adequate resources to offer or sustain supplemental screening. In those offering supplemental imaging, the modalities offered varied widely as did the manner of offering a supplemental exam. Levels of satisfaction, concerns, and standard practices of respondents were also queried. Strategizing optimal imaging approaches and algorithms to handle dense breast management issues is important to maintain efficiency in breast imaging departments. Sharing current ideas and practices may facilitate a smoother workflow in mandatory dense breast reporting and supplemental imaging, allowing breast imagers to correct or prevent systems-based flaws.

Knowledge of Density and Screening Ultrasound.

To determine breast density awareness and attitudes regarding supplemental breast ultrasound screening since implementation of the nation's first breast density notification law, Connecticut Public Act 09-41. A self-administered survey was distributed at a Connecticut academic breast imaging center between February 2013 and February 2014. Women with prior mammography reports describing heterogeneous or extremely dense breast tissue were invited to participate when presenting for screening mammography, screening ultrasound, or both. Data were collected on breast density awareness, history of prior ultrasounds, attitudes toward ultrasound and breast-cancer risk, and demographics. Data were collected from 950 completed surveys. The majority of surveyed women (92%) were aware of their breast density, and 77% had undergone a prior screening ultrasound. Forty-three percent of participants who were aware of their breast density also expressed increased anxiety about developing breast cancer due to having dense breast tissue. Caucasian race and higher education were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with knowledge of personal breast density (93% and 95%, respectively) and having a prior screening breast ultrasound (79% and 80%, respectively). Patients with less than a college degree (82%) were significantly more likely to rely exclusively on their provider's recommendation regarding obtaining screening ultrasound (p < 0.05). Breast density awareness is strongly associated with higher education, higher income, and Caucasian race. Non-Caucasian patients and those with less than a college education rely more heavily on their physicians' recommendations regarding screening ultrasound. Among women aware of their increased breast density, nearly half reported associated increased anxiety regarding the possibility of developing breast cancer.

Performance of DWI as a Rapid Unenhanced Technique for Detecting Mammographically Occult Breast Cancer in Elevated-Risk Women With Dense Breasts.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the performance of DWI to detect mammographically occult breast cancer in elevated-risk women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all women who underwent screening breast MRI at our institution from January 2007 through May 2013. We created a case-control cohort composed of 48 subjects with mammographically dense breasts: 24 with mammographically occult cancer detected on MRI and 24 healthy women with negative MRI findings who were matched to the subjects with breast cancer patients for age, breast density, and MRI protocol. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and conspicuity score (range, 1-5) were assessed on DWI for all malignancies. Lesions and normal tissue were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test; associations with clinical characteristics were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test. Three experienced breast imagers who were blinded to medical records and contrast-enhanced MRI findings independently evaluated the unenhanced MRI scans of the 48 women for the presence of cancer. RESULTS: Mammographically occult breast cancers (invasive carcinoma, n = 16; ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 8) in women with dense breasts typically exhibited higher signal intensity on DWI than normal parenchyma (median CNR of cancers, 1.4; median conspicuity score of cancers, 4) and a lower ADC (median, 1.31 vs 1.79 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively) (p < 0.0001). The conspicuity score, CNR, and ADC were not associated with patient age, menopausal status, lesion size, morphologic type, or histology (p > 0.05). Average reader performance using unenhanced MRI was 45% sensitivity, 91% specificity, 62% positive predictive value, and 83% negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: In elevated-risk women with dense breasts, DWI can reveal cancers in addition to those detected on mammography alone with a low false-positive rate; these results suggest that DWI may have potential as a rapid supplemental screening tool.

Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts.

There are potential benefits and harms of screening ultrasound (US) to supplement mammographic screening of women with dense breast tissue. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of studies assessing the efficacy of screening US to supplement mammography among women with dense breasts. From a total of 189 peer-reviewed publications on the performance of screening US, 12 studies were relevant to our analysis. The reporting of breast cancer risk factors varied across studies; however, the study populations tended to be at greater than average risk for developing breast cancer. Overall, US detected an additional 0.3-7.7 cancers per 1000 examinations (median, 4.2) and was associated with an additional 11.7-106.6 biopsies per 1000 examinations (median, 52.2). Significant improvements in cancer detection in dense breasts have been achieved with the transition from film to digital mammography. Thus adjunctive screening with ultrasound should be considered in the context of current screening mammography performance. Clinicians should discuss breast density as 1 of several important breast cancer risk factors, consider the potential harms of adjunctive screening, and arrive at a shared decision consistent with each woman's preferences and values.

Early discussion of breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening: is it possible?

The purpose of this study is to determine whether it is possible to make breast cancer screening more efficient in those with dense breasts. Over 12 states require that patients with dense breasts receive notification about their breast density in lay letters that are sent after the screening mammogram. Some of these letters advise patients to speak with their primary care providers about the possibility of supplemental breast cancer screening. We sought to determine whether primary care providers can discuss breast density and recommend supplemental breast cancer screening using the density of the previous mammography. This would reduce the burden of additional appointments and might increase the number of patients choosing to have supplemental screening. The mammographic breast density of 250 consecutive patients from May 2011 to September 2011 was compared with the immediate prior mammogram. Patients whose prior mammograms were more than 36 months prior or less than 8 months prior to the current exam were excluded, leaving 217 patients. The proportion of patients with breast density change was analyzed. The concordance of breast density between the two exams was assessed and the effects of patient age and the length of time between mammograms were examined. The breast density of the current and most recent prior mammogram was stable for 86.6% of patients. Neither age nor length of time between mammograms affected concordance. Primary care providers can decrease the need for multiple appointments and decrease patient anxiety by discussing breast density and screening choices prior to the patient's screening mammography. The great majority of patients will receive the correct information about their breast density by using a prior report.

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited. CONCLUSIONS: In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.

Asymmetric uptake on molecular breast imaging: A manifestation of unilateral breastfeeding.

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is an adjunctive screening tool that can be helpful in evaluating women with dense breasts or in high-risk patients. We present the case of a 43-year-old female who had markedly asymmetric uptake in one of her breasts on MBI study. Further evaluation with diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound did not demonstrate any suspicious findings in the affected breast. Discussion with the patient and additional clinical history revealed that the patient was exclusively breastfeeding from that side, accounting for the unilateral MBI findings.

Automated rating of background parenchymal enhancement in MRI of extremely dense breasts without compromising the association with breast cancer in the DENSE trial.

OBJECTIVES: Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) as rated by radiologists is subject to inter- and intrareader variability. We aim to automate BPE category from DCE-MRI. METHODS: This study represents a secondary analysis of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening trial. 4553 women with extremely dense breasts who received supplemental breast MRI screening in eight hospitals were included. Minimal, mild, moderate and marked BPE rated by radiologists were used as reference. Fifteen quantitative MRI features of the fibroglandular tissue were extracted to predict BPE using Random Forest, Naïve Bayes, and KNN classifiers. Majority voting was used to combine the predictions. Internal-external validation was used for training and validation. The inverse-variance weighted mean accuracy was used to express mean performance across the eight hospitals. Cox regression was used to verify non inferiority of the association between automated rating and breast cancer occurrence compared to the association for manual rating. RESULTS: The accuracy of majority voting ranged between 0.56 and 0.84 across the eight hospitals. The weighted mean prediction accuracy for the four BPE categories was 0.76. The hazard ratio (HR) of BPE for breast cancer occurrence was comparable between automated rating and manual rating (HR = 2.12 versus HR = 1.97, P = 0.65 for mild/moderate/marked BPE relative to minimal BPE). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to rate BPE automatically in DCE-MRI of women with extremely dense breasts without compromising the underlying association between BPE and breast cancer occurrence. The accuracy for minimal BPE is superior to that for other BPE categories.

High-resolution diffusion-weighted MRI plus mammography for detecting clinically occult breast cancers in women with dense breasts.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of mammography, high-resolution DW-MRI, DCE-MRI, and their combinations in detecting clinically occult breast cancer in women with dense breasts. METHOD: 544 breasts from 281 consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts were retrospectively identified. They underwent breast MRI for preoperative evaluation of breast cancers (n = 214) or as supplemental screening (n = 67) including DCE-MRI and DW-MRI (b values, 0 and 1000 sec/mm2; in-plane resolution, 1.1 × 1.1 mm2 and 1.3 × 1.3 mm2; section thickness, 3 mm), in addition to mammography. Three readers independently reviewed each examination on a per-breast basis. Histopathology and at least two year of imaging follow-up served as the gold standard. The sensitivities and specificities of different imaging modalities were compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: 230 of 544 breasts (42 %) had malignant lesions. The sensitivity of DW-MRI was higher than that of mammography (77.0 % vs 57.9 %; adjusted p < 0.001), but lower than that of DCE-MRI (84.8 %; adjusted p = 0.014). The specificity of DW-MRI was comparable to those of mammography (98.1 % vs 99.1 %; adjusted p > 0.999) and DCE-MRI (97.1 %; adjusted p > 0.999). DW-MRI plus mammography had a comparable sensitivity and specificity to those of DCE-MRI plus mammography (88.6 % vs 90.9 % and 97.1 % vs 96.2 %; adjusted p > 0.999 for both). CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution DW-MRI had a sensitivity higher than mammography and lower than DCE-MRI. Nevertheless, DW-MRI plus mammography showed a comparable sensitivity and specificity to DCE-MRI plus mammography for detecting clinically occult cancers in women with dense breasts.

Clinical significance of serum synaptophysin-like 1 protein levels in breast cancer.

Background: Mammography, used for breast cancer (BC) screening, has limitations such as decreased sensitivity in dense breasts. Currently used tumor markers are insufficient in diagnosing breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between serum levels of synaptophysin-like protein 1 (SYPL1) and BC and compare SYPL1 with other blood tumor markers. Methods: The study group consisted of 80 female patients with a histopathological diagnosis of invasive BC who received no radiotherapy/chemotherapy. The control group was 72 women with no previous history of breast disease and evaluated as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS 1-2) on imaging. Serum SYPL1, cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were measured in both groups.