A Simple Ultrasound Based Classification Algorithm Allows Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Breast Lesions by Using Only Quantitative Parameters.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that different quantitative ultrasound (US) parameters may be used as complementary diagnostic criteria and aimed to develop a simple classification algorithm to distinguish benign from malignant breast lesions and aid in the decision to perform biopsy or not. PROCEDURES: One hundred twenty-four patients, each with one biopsy-proven, sonographically evident breast lesion, were included in this prospective, IRB-approved study. Each lesion was examined with B-mode US, Color/Power Doppler US and elastography (Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse-ARFI). Different quantitative parameters were recorded for each technique, including pulsatility (PI) and resistive Index (RI) for Doppler US and lesion maximum, intermediate, and minimum shear wave velocity (SWVmax, SWVinterm, and SWVmin) as well as lesion-to-fat SWV ratio for ARFI. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of each quantitative parameter. Classification analysis was performed using the exhaustive chi-squared automatic interaction detection method. Results include the probability for malignancy for every descriptor combination in the classification algorithm. RESULTS: Sixty-five lesions were malignant and 59 benign. Out of all quantitative indices, maximum SWV (SWVmax), and RI were included in the classification algorithm, which showed a depth of three ramifications (SWVmax ≤ or > 3.16; if SWVmax ≤ 3.16 then RI ≤ 0.66, 0.66-0.77 or > 0.77; if RI ≤ 0.66 then SWVmax ≤ or > 2.71). The classification algorithm leads to an AUC of 0.887 (95 % CI 0.818-0.937, p < 0.0001), a sensitivity of 98.46 % (95 % CI 91.7-100 %), and a specificity of 61.02 % (95 % CI 47.4-73.5 %). By applying the proposed algorithm, a false-positive biopsy could have been avoided in 61 % of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: A simple classification algorithm incorporating two quantitative US parameters (SWVmax and RI) shows a high diagnostic performance, being able to accurately differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions and lower the number of unnecessary breast biopsies in up to 60 % of all cases, avoiding any subjective interpretation bias

Virtual Touch IQ elastography reduces unnecessary breast biopsies by applying quantitative "rule-in" and "rule-out" threshold values.

Our purpose was to evaluate Virtual Touch IQ (VTIQ) elastography and identify quantitative "rule-in" and "rule-out" thresholds for the probability of malignancy, which can help avoid unnecessary breast biopsies. 189 patients with 196 sonographically evident lesions were included in this retrospective, IRB-approved study. Quantitative VTIQ images of each lesion measuring the respective maximum Shear Wave Velocity (SWV) were obtained. Paired and unpaired, non-parametric statistics were applied for comparisons as appropriate. ROC-curve analysis was used to analyse the diagnostic performance of VTIQ and to specify "rule-in" and "rule-out" thresholds for the probability of malignancy. The standard of reference was either histopathology or follow-up stability for >24 months. 84 lesions were malignant and 112 benign. Median SWV of benign lesions was significantly lower than that of malignant lesions (p 98% with a concomitant significant (p = 0.032) reduction in false positive cases of almost 15%, whereas a "rule-in" threshold of 6.5 m/s suggested a probability of malignancy of >95%. In conclusion, VTIQ elastography accurately differentiates malignant from benign breast lesions. The application of quantitative "rule-in" and "rule-out" thresholds is feasible and allows reduction of unnecessary benign breast biopsies by almost 15%

Breast lesion detection and characterization with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Prospective randomized intraindividual comparison of gadoterate meglumine (0.15 mmol/kg) and gadobenate dimeglumine (0.075 mmol/kg) at 3T.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for breast cancer detection. Multichannel coils and 3T scanners can increase signal, spatial, and temporal resolution. In addition, the T1 -reduction effect of a gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) is higher at 3T. Thus, it might be possible to reduce the dose of GBCA at 3T without losing diagnostic information. PURPOSE: To compare a three-quarter (0.075 mmol/kg) dose of the high-relaxivity GBCA gadobenate dimeglumine, with a 1.5-fold higher than on-label dose (0.15 mmol/kg) of gadoterate meglumine for breast lesion detection and characterization at 3T CE-MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, randomized, intraindividual comparative study. POPULATION: Eligible were patients with imaging abnormalities (BI-RADS 0, 4, 5) on conventional imaging. Each patient underwent two examinations, 24-72 hours apart, one with 0.075 mmol/kg gadobenate and the other with 0.15 mmol/kg gadoterate administered in a randomized order. In all, 109 patients were prospectively recruited. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T MRI with a standard breast protocol (dynamic-CE, T2 w-TSE, STIR-T2 w, DWI). ASSESSMENT: Histopathology was the standard of reference. Three blinded, off-site breast radiologists evaluated the examinations using the BI-RADS lexicon. STATISTICAL TESTS: Lesion detection, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated per-lesion and per-region, and compared by univariate and multivariate analysis (Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE). RESULTS: Five patients were excluded, leaving 104 women with 142 histologically verified breast lesions (109 malignant, 33 benign) available for evaluation. Lesion detection with gadobenate (84.5-88.7%) was not inferior to gadoterate (84.5-90.8%) (P ≥ 0.165). At per-region analysis, gadobenate demonstrated higher specificity (96.4-98.7% vs. 92.6-97.3%, P ≤ 0.007) and accuracy (96.3-97.8% vs. 93.6-96.1%, P ≤ 0.001) compared with gadoterate. Multivariate analysis demonstrated superior, reader-independent diagnostic accuracy with gadobenate (odds ratio = 1.7, P < 0.001 using GEE). DATA CONCLUSION: A 0.075 mmol/kg dose of the high-relaxivity contrast agent gadobenate was not inferior to a 0.15 mmol/kg dose of gadoterate for breast lesion detection. Gadobenate allowed increased specificity and accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1157-1165

Microstructural breast tissue characterization: A head-to-head comparison of Diffusion Weighted Imaging and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse elastography with clinical implications

Abstract Purpose Head-to-head comparison of Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) elastography regarding the characterization of breast lesions in an assessment setting. Method Patients undergoing an ultrasound examination including ARFI and an MRI protocol including DWI for the characterization of a BI-RADS 3–5 breast lesion between 06/2013 and 10/2016 were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective, IRB-approved study. 60 patients (30–84 years, median 50) with a median lesion size of 16 mm (range 5–55 mm) were included. The maximum shear wave velocity (SWVmax) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) for each lesion were retrospectively evaluated by a radiologist experienced in the technique. Histology was the reference standard. Diagnostic performances of ARFI and DWI were assessed using ROC curve analysis. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the independence of both tests regarding their diagnostic information to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Results Corresponding areas under the ROC curve for differentiation of benign (n = 16) and malignant (n = 49) lesions were 0.822 (ARFI) and 0.871 (DWI, p-value = 0.48). SWVmax and ADCmean values showed a significant negative correlation (ρ = −0.501, p-value Conclusion Significant correlation between quantitative findings of ARFI and DWI in breast lesions exists. Thus, ARFI provides similar diagnostic information as a DWI-including protocol of an additional "problem-solving" MRI for the characterization of a sonographically evident breast lesion, improving the immediate patient management in the assessment setting

A simple classification system (the Tree flowchart) for breast MRI can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in MRI-only lesions.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether using the Tree flowchart obviates unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies in breast lesions only visible on MRI. METHODS: This retrospective IRB-approved study evaluated consecutive suspicious (BI-RADS 4) breast lesions only visible on MRI that were referred to our institution for MRI-guided biopsy. All lesions were evaluated according to the Tree flowchart for breast MRI by experienced readers. The Tree flowchart is a decision rule that assigns levels of suspicion to specific combinations of diagnostic criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy. To assess reproducibility by kappa statistics, a second reader rated a subset of 82 patients. RESULTS: There were 454 patients with 469 histopathologically verified lesions included (98 malignant, 371 benign lesions). The area under the curve (AUC) of the Tree flowchart was 0.873 (95% CI: 0.839-0.901). The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (kappa: 0.944; 95% CI 0.889-0.998). ROC analysis revealed exclusively benign lesions if the Tree node was ≤2, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies in 103 cases (27.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Using the Tree flowchart in breast lesions only visible on MRI, more than 25% of biopsies could be avoided without missing any breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • The Tree flowchart may obviate >25% of unnecessary MRI-guided breast biopsies. • This decrease in MRI-guided biopsies does not cause any false-negative cases. • The Tree flowchart predicts 30.6% of malignancies with >98% specificity. • The Tree's high specificity aids in decision-making after benign biopsy results

Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems performing at radiologist-like levels in the evaluation of digital mammography (DM) would improve breast cancer screening accuracy and efficiency. We aimed to compare the stand-alone performance of an AI system to that of radiologists in detecting breast cancer in DM. METHODS: Nine multi-reader, multi-case study datasets previously used for different research purposes in seven countries were collected. Each dataset consisted of DM exams acquired with systems from four different vendors, multiple radiologists' assessments per exam, and ground truth verified by histopathological analysis or follow-up, yielding a total of 2652 exams (653 malignant) and interpretations by 101 radiologists (28 296 independent interpretations). An AI system analyzed these exams yielding a level of suspicion of cancer present between 1 and 10. The detection performance between the radiologists and the AI system was compared using a noninferiority null hypothesis at a margin of 0.05. RESULTS: The performance of the AI system was statistically noninferior to that of the average of the 101 radiologists. The AI system had a 0.840 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.820 to 0.860) area under the ROC curve and the average of the radiologists was 0.814 (95% CI = 0.787 to 0.841) (difference 95% CI = -0.003 to 0.055). The AI system had an AUC higher than 61.4% of the radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated AI system achieved a cancer detection accuracy comparable to an average breast radiologist in this retrospective setting. Although promising, the performance and impact of such a system in a screening setting needs further investigation

4D perfusion CT of prostate cancer for image-guided radiotherapy planning: A proof of concept study.

PURPOSE: Advanced forms of prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy with either external beam therapy or brachytherapy delivery techniques aim for a focal boost and thus require accurate lesion localization and lesion segmentation for subsequent treatment planning. This study prospectively evaluated dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) for the detection of prostate cancer lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ) using qualitative and quantitative image analysis compared to multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. METHODS: With local ethics committee approval, 14 patients (mean age, 67 years; range, 57-78 years; PSA, mean 8.1 ng/ml; range, 3.5-26.0) underwent DCE-CT, as well as mpMRI of the prostate, including standard T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and DCE-MRI sequences followed by transrectal in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy. Maximum intensity projections (MIP) and DCE-CT perfusion parameters (CTP) were compared between healthy and malignant tissue. Two radiologists independently rated image quality and the tumor lesion delineation quality of PCa using a five-point ordinal scale. MIP and CTP were compared using visual grading characteristics (VGC) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC)/area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: The PCa detection rate ranged between 57 to 79% for the two readers for DCE-CT and was 92% for DCE-MRI. DCE-CT perfusion parameters in PCa tissue in the PZ were significantly different compared to regular prostate tissue and benign lesions. Image quality and lesion visibility were comparable between DCE-CT and DCE-MRI (VGC: AUC 0.612 and 0.651, p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results suggest that it is feasible to use DCE-CT for identification and visualization, and subsequent segmentation for focal radiotherapy approaches to PCa

Axillary lymphadenopathy at the time of COVID-19 vaccination: ten recommendations from the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a frequent mild side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) proposes ten recommendations to standardise its management and reduce unnecessary additional imaging and invasive procedures: (1) in patients with previous history of breast cancer, vaccination should be performed in the contralateral arm or in the thigh; (2) collect vaccination data for all patients referred to breast imaging services, including patients undergoing breast cancer staging and follow-up imaging examinations; (3) perform breast imaging examinations preferentially before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after the last vaccine dose; (4) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, apply standard imaging protocols regardless of vaccination status; (5) in any case of symptomatic or imaging-detected axillary lymphadenopathy before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after, examine with appropriate imaging the contralateral axilla and both breasts to exclude malignancy; (6) in case of axillary lymphadenopathy contralateral to the vaccination side, perform standard work-up; (7) in patients without breast cancer history and no suspicious breast imaging findings, lymphadenopathy only ipsilateral to the vaccination side within 12 weeks after vaccination can be considered benign or probably-benign, depending on clinical context; (8) in patients without breast cancer history, post-vaccination lymphadenopathy coupled with suspicious breast finding requires standard work-up, including biopsy when appropriate; (9) in patients with breast cancer history, interpret and manage post-vaccination lymphadenopathy considering the timeframe from vaccination and overall nodal metastatic risk; (10) complex or unclear cases should be managed by the multidisciplinary team

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information.

UNLABELLED: This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. KEY POINTS: • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3807-

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Abstract This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method