Reasons for (non)participation in supplemental population-based MRI breast screening for women with extremely dense breasts.

AIM: To determine the willingness of women with extremely dense breasts to undergo breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a research setting, and to examine reasons for women to participate or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2015, 8,061 women (50-75 years) were invited for supplemental MRI as part of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01315015), after a negative screening mammography in the national population-based mammography screening programme. Demographics of participants and non-participants were compared. All invitees were asked to report reasons for (non)participation. Ethical approval was obtained. Participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 8,061 invitees, 66% answered that they were interested, and 59% eventually participated. Participants were on average 54-years old (interquartile range: 51-59 years), comparable to women with extremely dense breasts in the population-based screening programme (55 years). Women with higher socio-economic status (SES) were more often interested in participation than women with lower SES (68% versus 59%, p<0.001). The most frequently stated reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences and/or self-reported contraindications to MRI" (27%) and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening" (21%). "Expected personal health benefit" (68%) and "contribution to science" (43%) were the most frequent reasons for participation. CONCLUSION: Of women invited for MRI because of extremely dense breasts, 59% participated. Common reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences" and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening". In case of future implementation, availability of precise evidence on benefits and harms might reduce this anxiety.

3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of 3-Tesla (T) breast MRI in patients presenting with microcalcifications on mammography. METHODS: Between January 2006 and May 2009, 123 patients with mammographically detected BI-RADS 3­5 microcalcifications underwent 3-T breast MRI before undergoing breast biopsy. All MRIs of the histopathologically confirmed index lesions were reviewed by two breast radiologists. The detection rate of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was evaluated, as well as the added diagnostic value of MRI over mammography and breast ultrasound. RESULTS: At pathology, 40/123 (33%) lesions proved malignant; 28 (70%) DCIS and 12 (30%) invasive carcinoma. Both observers detected all invasive malignancies at MRI, as well as 79% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2) of in situ lesions. MRI in addition to conventional imaging led to a significant increase in area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56­0.79) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.70­0.88, observer 1) and to 0.80 (95% CI 0.71­0.89, observer 2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 3-T breast MRI was shown to add significant value to conventional imaging in patients presenting with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography. KEY POINTS: • 3-T MRI is increasingly used for breast imaging in clinical practice. • On 3-T breast MRI up to 86% of DCIS lesions are detected. • 3-T MRI increases the diagnostic value in patients with mammographically detected microcalcifications.

The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor's system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor's systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.