Predictors of invasive breast cancer and lymph node involvement in ductal carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed by vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Experience of 733 cases

Abstract Objective To predict presence of invasive component and nodal involvement in women diagnosed preoperatively with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB). Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed 733 patients with preoperatively diagnosed DCIS, investigating the association of clinical–radiological variables with invasive component and nodal involvement. Results Mammographic size >20 mm and residual lesion on post-VABB mammogram were related to invasive component (both p p = 0.001, p = 0.03). Age p = 0.003). By multivariate analysis residual disease was associated with invasive component, and mammographic tumor size >20 mm with nodal involvement, both highly significant. Conclusions Older age, lesio

Screening and diagnostic breast MRI:how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study

Objectives: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. Methods: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. Conclusions: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. Key points: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

Funder: Bayer AGFunder: Università degli Studi di MilanoOBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making

Role of breast MR imaging for predicting malignancy of histologically borderline lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: prospective evaluation.

Purpose: To prospectively determine the diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in predicting the malignancy of breast lesions classified as borderline at core needle biopsy (CNB). Materials and Methods: This prospective study was approved by the local ethics committee, and all patients provided written informed consent. Between February 2007 and October 2009, 193 patients underwent ultrasonography (US)-guided CNB. Thirty-two lesions in 32 patients were classified as "borderline" ("lesions of uncertain malignant potential" according to the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening program or those that are "probably benign" according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] lexicon) at pathologic examination and were evaluated. All 32 patients underwent contrast agent-enhanced breast MR imaging 1-3 weeks after CNB; surgical biopsy was performed within 60 days of MR imaging. Results were compared with histologic findings. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: Findings from surgical biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of seven atypical ductal hyperplasia lesions, four atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) lesions, five papillary lesions, two fibroepithelial lesions, three radial scars, three lobular carcinomas in situ, three ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS), four invasive ductal carcinomas, and one invasive lobular carcinoma. With regard to malignancy, breast MR imaging helped correctly classify 22 of the 32 lesions as negative and seven as positive. Two of the lesions confirmed to be ALH were incorrectly classified as suspicious (BI-RADS category IV; false-positive finding), whereas one small DCIS was incorrectly classified as nonsuspicious (BI-RADS category II; false-negative finding). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values for the correct demonstration of malignancy at MR imaging were 88% (seven of eight lesions), 92% (22 of 24 lesions), 91% (29 of 32 lesions), 78% (seven of nine lesions), and 96% (22 of 23 lesions), respectively. Conclusion: Breast MR imaging can improve the evaluation of lesions classified as borderline at CNB. In cases of nonsuspicious enhancement or no enhancement at breast MR imaging, follow-up rather than surgical biopsy might be performed. (C)RSNA, 201

Inter-Reader Agreement of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection: A Multi-Reader Retrospective Study

Purpose: In order to evaluate the use of un-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting breast cancer, we evaluated the accuracy and the agreement of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) through the inter-reader reproducibility between expert and non-expert readers. Material and Methods: Consecutive breast MRI performed in a single centre were retrospectively evaluated by four radiologists with different levels of experience. The per-breast standard of reference was the histological diagnosis from needle biopsy or surgical excision, or at least one-year negative follow-up on imaging. The agreement across readers (by inter-reader reproducibility) was examined for each breast examined using Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa (κ) statistics. The Wald test was used to test the difference in inter-reader agreement between expert and non-expert readers. Results: Of 1131 examinations, according to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 382 women were included (49.5 ± 12 years old), 40 of them with unilateral mastectomy, totaling 724 breasts. Overall inter-reader reproducibility was substantial (κ = 0.74) for expert readers and poor (κ = 0.37) for non- expert readers. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.60) and showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers (p = 0.003). Conclusions: DWI showed substantial inter-reader reproducibility among expert-level readers. Pairwise comparison showed superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers, with the expert readers having higher inter-reader reproducibility than the non-expert readers. These findings open new perspectives for prospective studies investigating the actual role of DWI as a stand-alone method for un-enhanced breast MRI

The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound

Purpose: To establish the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in comparison to x-ray mammography and ultrasound for breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma. Materials and Methods: Two hundred thirty-eight women with dense breast parenchyma who were suspicious for breast cancer or inconclusive for the presence of breast lesions based on clinical examination, ultrasound or x-ray mammography, and who underwent breast MRI at 1.5 T before and after administration of 0.1 mmol/k., gadobenate dimeglumine were evaluated. Lesions considered malignant (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5) on x-ray mammography and/or ultrasound and as BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 on MRI were evaluated histologically. Other lesions were followed up at 6 and/or 18 months. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) of each technique was determined and compared using a general linear mixed model with appropriate correction for multiplicity. Results: At final diagnosis 121 of 238 (50.8%) women had one or more confirmed malignant lesions, whereas 117 (49.2%) had benign lesions or no lesions. Among 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques more lesions (malignant and benign) were detected with breast MRI to (n = 135) than with x-ray mammography (n = 85) or ultrasound (n = 107) and diagnostic confidence was greater. In terms of patient-based diagnostic accuracy breast M RI was significantly (P[r] < 0.0001) superior to both x-ray mammography and ultrasound (96.9% accuracy for MRI vs. 60.8% for mammography and 66.0% for US). Malignant lesions were histologically confirmed in 55 of 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques. Breast MRI detected more cases of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease and fewer misdiagnoses occurred. Overall, breast MRI led to a modification of the surgical approach for 28 (23.1%) of the 121 women with diagnosed malignant disease. Conclusion: Breast MRI should be considered for routine breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer?

Diagnostic imaging in women with suspected breast cancer should accurately detect and diagnose malignant tumors and facilitate the correct choice of therapy. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is potentially the imaging modality of choice for accurate patient management decisions. A total of 164 women with suspected breast cancer based on clinical examination, conventional mammography and/or ultrasound each underwent preoperative bilateral CE-MRM using an axial 3D dynamic T1-weighted gradient-echo sequence and gadobenate dimeglumine as contrast agent. Images were evaluated by two readers in consensus. Histological evaluation of detected lesions was performed on samples from core biopsy or surgery. Determinations were made of the sensitivity, accuracy and positive predictive value of CE-MRM compared to mammography/ultrasound for the detection of malignant lesions and of the impact of CE-MRM for surgical decision-making. Conventional mammography/ultrasound detected 175 lesions in the 164 evaluated patients. CE-MRM revealed 51 additional lesions in 34/164 patients; multifocal and multicentric cancer was detected in 7 and 4 additional patients, respectively, contralateral foci in 21 additional patients and pectoral muscle infiltration in 2 additional patients. CE-MRM also confirmed the absence or benignity of 3 and 1 lesions suspected of malignancy on mammography/ultrasound. The sensitivity and accuracy for malignant lesion detection and identification was 100% and 93.4%, respectively, for CE-MRM compared to 77.3% and 72.1% for mammography/ultrasound, respectively. Patient management was altered for 32/164 (19.5%) patients as a result of CE-MRM. CE-MRM positively impacts patient management decisions and should be performed in all women with suspected breast cancer based on clinical examination, mammography and/or ultrasound

Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: Improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced breast MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Forty-seven women (mean age ± SD, 50.8 ± 12.9 years) with breast lesions classified as BI-RADS category 3, 4, or 5 for suspicion of malignancy underwent two identical MR examinations at 1.5 T separated by 48-72 hours. T1-weighted gradient-echo images were acquired before contrast administration and at 2-minute intervals after the randomized injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine or gadobenate dimeglumine at 2 mL/s. Two blinded readers evaluated randomized image sets for lesion detection and differentiation as benign or malignant compared with histology. The McNemar exact test and the generalized estimating equation (GEE) were used to compare lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS. Histopathology data were available for 78 lesions. Significantly more lesions overall (75/78 [96%] vs 62/78 [79%], respectively; p = 0.0002) and significantly more malignant lesions (49/50 [98%] vs 38/50 [76%]; p = 0.0009) were detected with gadobenate dimeglumine than gadopentetate dimeglumine. All detected malignant lesions were correctly diagnosed with both agents. More detected benign lesions were correctly diagnosed with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine (20/26 [77%] vs 17/24 [71%], respectively). Differentiation of lesions was significantly (p = 0.0001) better with gadobenate dimeglumine. Significantly better diagnostic performance was noted with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively, for sensitivity (98.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0064), accuracy (88.5% vs 69.2%; p = 0.0004), PPV (86.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0321), and NPV (95.2% vs 57.1%; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION. Lesion detection and malignant-benign differentiation is significantly better with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine than 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine. © American Roentgen Ray Society

A Score to Predict the Malignancy of a Breast Lesion Based on Different Contrast Enhancement Patterns in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography

Background: To create a predictive score of malignancy of a breast lesion based on the main contrast enhancement features ascertained by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Methods: In this single-centre prospective study, patients with suspicious breast lesions (BIRADS > 3) were enrolled between January 2013 and February 2022. All participants underwent CESM prior to breast biopsy, and eventually surgery. A radiologist with 20 years’ experience in breast imaging evaluated the presence or absence of enhancement and the following enhancement descriptors: intensity, pattern, margin, and ground glass. A score of 0 or 1 was given for each descriptor, depending on whether the enhancement characteristic was predictive of benignity or malignancy (both in situ and invasive). Then, an overall enhancement score ranging from 0 to 4 was obtained. The histological results were considered the gold standard in the evaluation of the relationship between enhancement patterns and malignancy. Results: A total of 321 women (median age: 51 years; range: 22–83) with 377 suspicious breast lesions were evaluated. Two hundred forty-nine lesions (66%) have malignant histological results (217 invasive and 32 in situ). Considering an overall enhancement score ≥ 2 as predictive of malignancy, we obtain an overall sensitivity of 92.4%; specificity of 89.8%; positive predictive value of 94.7%; and negative predictive value of 85.8%. Conclusions: Our proposed predictive score on the enhancement descriptors of CESM to predict the malignancy of a breast lesion shows excellent results and can help in early breast cancer diagnosis and in avoiding unnecessary biopsies

How Radiomics Can Improve Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Recent technological advances in the field of artificial intelligence hold promise in addressing medical challenges in breast cancer care, such as early diagnosis, cancer subtype determination and molecular profiling, prediction of lymph node metastases, and prognostication of treatment response and probability of recurrence. Radiomics is a quantitative approach to medical imaging, which aims to enhance the existing data available to clinicians by means of advanced mathematical analysis using artificial intelligence. Various published studies from different fields in imaging have highlighted the potential of radiomics to enhance clinical decision making. In this review, we describe the evolution of AI in breast imaging and its frontiers, focusing on handcrafted and deep learning radiomics. We present a typical workflow of a radiomics analysis and a practical “how-to” guide. Finally, we summarize the methodology and implementation of radiomics in breast cancer, based on the most recent scientific literature to help researchers and clinicians gain fundamental knowledge of this emerging technology. Alongside this, we discuss the current limitations of radiomics and challenges of integration into clinical practice with conceptual consistency, data curation, technical reproducibility, adequate accuracy, and clinical translation. The incorporation of radiomics with clinical, histopathological, and genomic information will enable physicians to move forward to a higher level of personalized management of patients with breast cancer