Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research Articles

Association of breast cancer with MRI background parenchymal enhancement: the IMAGINE case-control study

BackgroundBackground parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be associated with breast cancer risk, but previous studies of the association are equivocal and limited by incomplete blinding of BPE assessment. In this study, we evaluated the association between BPE and breast cancer based on fully blinded assessments of BPE in the unaffected breast.MethodsThe Imaging and Epidemiology (IMAGINE) study is a multicenter breast cancer case-control study of women receiving diagnostic, screening, or follow-up breast MRI, recruited from three comprehensive cancer centers in the USA. Cases had a first diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer and controls had no history of or current breast cancer. A single board-certified breast radiologist with 12 years’ experience, blinded to case-control status and clinical information, assessed the unaffected breast for BPE without view of the affected breast of cases (or the corresponding breast laterality of controls). The association between BPE and breast cancer was estimated by multivariable logistic regression separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women.ResultsThe analytic dataset included 835 cases and 963 controls. Adjusting for fibroglandular tissue (breast density), age, race/ethnicity, BMI, parity, family history of breast cancer, BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, and other confounders, moderate/marked BPE (vs minimal/mild BPE) was associated with breast cancer among premenopausal women [odds ratio (OR) 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.11; p = 0.02]. Among postmenopausal women, mild/moderate/marked vs minimal BPE had a similar, but statistically non-significant, association with breast cancer (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92–2.27; p = 0.1).ConclusionsBPE is associated with breast cancer in premenopausal women, and possibly postmenopausal women, after adjustment for breast density and confounders. Our results suggest that BPE should be evaluated alongside breast density for inclusion in models predicting breast cancer risk.

Trends in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging use among US women, 2006 to 2016.

Supplemental breast cancer screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk of breast cancer. To the authors' knowledge, recent national trends in breast MRI use are unknown. The authors used claims data from a large national insurer to calculate screening breast MRI rates from 2006 to 2016 in a US cohort of 10 million women aged 20 to 64 years. Use was stratified by subgroups of women with a BRCA mutation, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast cancer history and stratified by age. Joinpoint regression evaluated annual changes in trends. The total sample included 37,447 screening breast MRI examinations in 25,617 women. Overall screening breast MRI rates were low and increased from 2.9 to 12.1 examinations per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. MRI use in women with a BRCA mutation increased by 21% on average annually from 210.8 per 10,000 women to 1562.0 per 10,000 women from 2006 to 2016. By 2016, women aged 50 to 64 years who had a BRCA mutation had the highest use of breast MRI (1669.6 MRI examinations per 10,000 women) compared with younger women (1198.4 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, 1519.1 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, and 1567.2 MRI examinations per 10,000 women, respectively, among women aged 20-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years). Women with a BRCA mutation comprised <1% of the current study population but received approximately 9% of screening breast MRI examinations. Breast MRI rates among women with a family history of breast cancer or prior breast cancer history initially increased from 2006 to 2008, but then stabilized or decreased. The increases in breast MRI use observed in the current study have indicated improvements in concordance with breast imaging guidelines. However, women with BRCA mutations remain underscreened, particularly younger women, thereby identifying a clear gap with which to enhance access.

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in early-stage breast cancer survivors-An institutional experience and literature review.

The role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the screening of breast cancer survivors with remaining breast tissue is not well studied. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of screening breast MRI in a cohort of breast cancer survivors. A population of patients with history of stage I-IIIa breast cancer and ≥1 MRI a year or later from diagnosis between 2006-2008 were identified using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network data base from two large Boston-area cancer centers. Patient and disease characteristics were obtained from the data base, and medical records were reviewed to identify the index MRI (first eligible), indications, and two-year outcomes. Overall, 647 patients had breast MRI scans during the study period including 342 eligible patients whose index MRIs were done for breast screening purposes. 47/342 (13.7%) were abnormal, and 3.8% (13/342) underwent biopsy, resulting in the detection of 3 cases of locoregional recurrence or new primary breast cancer (0.9%, 95% CI=0.2%-2.5%). Of 295 patients with a normal index screening MRI, 12 had a breast cancer recurrence diagnosed within 2years (4.1% 95%CI=2.1%-7.0%), and 5 of these recurrences were limited to MRI-screened breast tissue. No statistically significant difference in the rate of 2-year locoregional or distant recurrence was observed between patients with an abnormal screening MRI and those with a normal scan. Adjunct single breast MRI surveillance in a general population of breast cancer survivors one year after diagnosis detected few recurrences, and its effect on short-term outcomes was unclear.

The Utility of Short-Interval Follow-Up for Baseline High-Risk Screening Breast MRI.

Patients with a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer undergo annual screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting at age 30. A proportion of these patients are subsequently required to undergo short-interval follow-up MRI 6 months after their baseline examination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility and outcome of these short-interval follow-up examinations in this population. A retrospective review was performed of 523 patients who received their baseline high-risk breast screening MRI at our institution between 2013 and 2017. The proportion of patients who received a short-interval follow-up MRI at 6 months was recorded. The findings at baseline and follow-up MRI were recorded, as well as the outcomes and results of any interventions performed. Ninety-six (17.6%) patients (age range: 25-67, mean age: 41) received a short-interval follow-up MRI following their baseline screening examination. Indications for follow-up included moderate to marked background parenchymal enhancement, nonmass enhancement, and likely benign enhancing mass. Of the 92 patients, 5 (5.4%) went on to have a biopsy, with none revealing a malignant pathology. The remainder either returned to routine screening (91.3%) or received further imaging in the form of ultrasound or additional follow-up MRI (3.3%). Short-interval follow-up breast MRI in high-risk patients after a baseline screening study with likely benign findings is unlikely to yield clinically significant findings. This retrospective study can be considered a starting point for additional future work looking at the rate, indications, and yield of short-interval follow-up following baseline high-risk screening breast MRI studies.

Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations.

BackgroundAlthough management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.MethodsDe‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post‐test candidacy for guideline‐recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.ResultsTwenty‐four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider‐recommended management.ConclusionsTesting for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long‐term cancer morbidity and mortality.

Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI

To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group. For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05). Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.

Promoting Breast Cancer Surveillance: The EMPOWER Study, a Randomized Clinical Trial in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

The aim of the current study was to increase the uptake of screening mammography among high-risk women who were treated for a childhood cancer with chest radiotherapy. Two hundred four female survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were treated with chest radiotherapy with 20 Gy or greater, age 25 to 50 years, and without breast imaging in the past 24 months were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive a mailed informational packet followed by a tailored telephone-delivered brief motivational interview (intervention) versus an attention control. Primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants who completed a screening mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis. Stratum-adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes included the completion of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and barriers to screening and moderating factors. Women in the intervention group were significantly more likely than those in the control group to report a mammogram (45 [33.1%] of 136 v 12 [17.6%] of 68; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3). The intervention was more successful among women age 25 to 39 years (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.7) than among those age 40 to 50 years (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2). The proportion of women who reported a breast MRI at 12 months was similar between the two groups: 16.2% (intervention) compared with 13.2% (control; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5). Primary barriers to completing a screening mammogram and/or breast MRI included lack of physician recommendation, deferred action by survivor, cost, and absence of symptoms. Use of mailed materials followed by telephone-delivered counseling increased mammography screening rates in survivors at high risk for breast cancer; however, this approach did not increase the rate of breast MRI. Cost of imaging and physician recommendation were important barriers that should be addressed in future studies.

Influence of Menstrual Cycle Timing on Screening Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Diagnostic Performance in Premenopausal Women.

To assess the influence of menstrual cycle timing on background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and performance on screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in premenopausal women at high risk for developing breast cancer. After Institutional Review Board approval, all screening breast MRIs performed from January 2007 through November 2010 in premenopausal women in whom day from last menstrual period was recorded were identified. Prospectively recorded BPE levels and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System MRI assessments were extracted from our database. Subject outcomes were determined by using biopsy, imaging follow-up, and linkage with the regional tumor registry (minimum 12-month follow-up). Associations of BPE levels (minimal/mild versus moderate/marked) with menstrual cycle phase (follicular [day 0-15] versus luteal [day 16-35]) and week (1, 2, 3, or 4) were compared. Differences in MRI performance metrics, including abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), positive biopsy rate (PBR), cancer yield, sensitivity, and specificity, were compared between menstrual cycle phase and menstrual cycle week. Three-hundred twenty examinations in 244 premenopausal women met inclusion criteria with nine cancers diagnosed. BPE levels were not associated with menstrual cycle phase or week (P > 0.05). MRI performance metrics (ie, AIR, PBR, cancer yield, sensitivity, or specificity) did not differ significantly based on menstrual cycle phase or menstrual cycle week (P > 0.05). Obtaining screening breast MRI exams during specific phases or weeks of the menstrual cycle in premenopausal women does not reliably produce MRI examinations with lower BPE levels or improved performance.

Pilot study of rapid MR pancreas screening for patients with BRCA mutation.

To develop and optimize a rapid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening protocol for pancreatic cancer to be performed in conjunction with breast MRI screening in breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-positive individuals. An IRB-approved prospective study was conducted. The rapid screening pancreatic MR protocol was designed to be less than 10min to be performed after a standard breast MRI protocol. Protocol consisted of coronal NT T2 SSFSE, axial NT T2 SSFSE and axial NT rFOV FOCUS DWI, and axial T1. Images were acquired with the patient in the same prone position of breast MRI using the built-in body coil. Image quality was qualitatively assessed by two radiologists with 12 and 13years of MRI experience, respectively. The imaging protocol was modified until an endpoint of five consecutive patients with high-quality diagnostic images were achieved. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were assessed. The rapid pancreas MR protocol was successfully completed in all patients. Diagnostic image quality was achieved for all patients. Excellent image quality was achieved for low b values; however, image quality at higher b values was more variable. In one patient, a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor was found and the patient was treated surgically. In four patients, small pancreatic cystic lesions were detected. In one subject, a hepatic mass was identified and confirmed as adenoma by liver MRI. Rapid MR protocol for pancreatic cancer screening is feasible and has the potential to play a role in screening BRCA patients undergoing breast MRI. • Develop and optimize a rapid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening protocol for pancreatic cancer to be performed in conjunction with breast MRI screening in BRCA mutation positive individuals.

Screening breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with hormone replacement therapy

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) users.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 4628 women who had mammography or breast MRI screening from the beginning of HRT use at three institutions from April 2005 to December 2015. Information of demographics, number of biopsies performed and pathologic outcomes were collected. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of screening mammography and MRI were compared.ResultsTotally 11,540 screening studies were collected, including 9580 mammography studies and 1960 MRI studies. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 26 patients. Of the 26 cancers, MRI detected 24 and mammography detected 15. For mammography, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 57.7%, 99.1%, 14.6%, and 99.9%, respectively; for MRI, those values were 92%, 92.5%, 14.2%, and 99.9%, respectively. MRI screening was much more sensitive than mammography screening (p < 0.05, 92% vs 57.7%). There was no difference of specificity, PPV and NPV between two modalities.ConclusionsOur data showed that screening breast MRI may be a useful adjunct modality of mammography in HRT users.

Multireader Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrafast Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening.

Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has limited accessibility due to high costs of breast MRI. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI can be acquired within 2 minutes. We aimed to assess whether screening performance of breast radiologist using an ultrafast breast MRI-only screening protocol is as good as performance using a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol (FDP). The institutional review board approved this study, and waived the need for informed consent. Between January 2012 and June 2014, 1791 consecutive breast cancer screening examinations from 954 women with a lifetime risk of more than 20% were prospectively collected. All women were scanned using a 3 T protocol interleaving ultrafast breast MRI acquisitions in a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol consisting of standard dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging, and T2-weighted imaging. Subsequently, a case set was created including all biopsied screen-detected lesions in this period (31 malignant and 54 benign) and 116 randomly selected normal cases with more than 2 years of follow-up. Prior examinations were included when available. Seven dedicated breast radiologists read all 201 examinations and 153 available priors once using the FDP and once using ultrafast breast MRI only in 2 counterbalanced and crossed-over reading sessions. For reading the FDP versus ultrafast breast MRI alone, sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.90) versus 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) (P = 0.50), specificity was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) versus 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) (P = 0.002), positive predictive value was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45) versus 0.45 (95% CI, 0.41-0.50) (P = 0.14), and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) versus 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) (P = 0.83). Ultrafast breast MRI reading was 22.8% faster than reading FDP (P < 0.001). Interreader agreement is significantly better for ultrafast breast MRI (κ = 0.730; 95% CI, 0.699-0.761) than for the FDP (κ = 0.665; 95% CI, 0.633-0.696). Breast MRI screening using only an ultrafast breast MRI protocol is noninferior to screening with an FDP and may result in significantly higher screening specificity and shorter reading time.

Relationship between Background Parenchymal Enhancement on High-risk Screening MRI and Future Breast Cancer Risk

To determine if background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk women correlates with future cancer. All screening breast MRIs (n = 1039) in high-risk women at our institution from August 1, 2004, to July 30, 2013, were identified. Sixty-one patients who subsequently developed breast cancer were matched 1:2 by age and high-risk indication with patients who did not develop breast cancer (n = 122). Five fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently recorded the BPE. The median reader BPE for each case was calculated and compared between the cancer and control cohorts. Cancer cohort patients were high-risk because of a history of radiation therapy (10%, 6 of 61), high-risk lesion (18%, 11 of 61), or breast cancer (30%, 18 of 61); BRCA mutation (18%, 11 of 61); or family history (25%, 15 of 61). Subsequent malignancies were invasive ductal carcinoma (64%, 39 of 61), ductal carcinoma in situ (30%, 18 of 61) and invasive lobular carcinoma (7%, 4of 61). BPE was significantly higher in the cancer cohort than in the control cohort (P = 0.01). Women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with minimal BPE (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.8, P = .005). There was fair interreader agreement (κ = 0.39). High-risk women with greater than minimal BPE at screening MRI have increased risk of future breast cancer.

Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer

There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC. Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812 164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013. A total of 2 048 994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI with or without screening mammogram within 30 days). Biopsy intensity (surgical greater than core greater than fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than ductal carcinoma in situ greater than high-risk benign greater than benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC. We included 101 103 and 1 939 455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk. Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.

Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening

BackgroundBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been reported to frequently result in false-positive diagnoses, limiting its positive predictive value (PPV). However, for PPV calculation, all nonmalignant tissue changes are equally considered false-positive, although the respective prognostic importance, and thus patient management implications, of different pathologies may well differ. We investigated the pathology of false-positive diagnoses made by MRI compared with radiographic (digital mammography/tomosynthesis [DM/DBT]) screening.MethodsWe conducted an institutional review board-approved prospective analysis of 710 consecutive asymptomatic women at average risk for breast cancer who underwent vacuum biopsy with or without surgical biopsy for screen-detected DM/DBT (n = 344) or MRI (n = 366) findings. We compared the frequency of false-positive biopsies (given by PPV3), as well as the types of nonmalignant tissue changes that caused the respective false-positive biopsies. In an order of increasing relative risk of subsequent breast cancer, pathologies of false-positive biopsies were categorized as nonproliferative, simple proliferative, complex proliferative, or atypical proliferative (including lobular carcinoma in situ/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare distributions.ResultsHistology yielded nonmalignant tissue in 202 of 366 biopsies done for positive MRI studies and 195 of 344 biopsies for positive DM/DBT studies, respectively, yielding a similar PPV3 percentages of 44.8% (164 of 202) and 43.3% (149 of 202) for both methods. However, the distribution of tissue types that caused false-positive diagnoses differed significantly (p < 0.0001). On the basis of MRI, high-risk atypical proliferative changes (40.1%; 81 of 202) were most common, followed by complex proliferative changes (23.8%; 48 of 202). In DM/DBT, low-risk, nonproliferative changes were the dominant reason for false-positive diagnoses (49.7%; 97 of 195), followed by simple proliferative changes (25.2%; 51 of 195). Low-risk nonproliferative changes resulted in false-positive diagnoses based on MRI as infrequently as did high-risk atypical proliferative changes based on DM/DBT (18.8% [38 of 202] vs. 18.0% [35 of 195]). The likelihood of a false-positive diagnosis including atypias was twice as high in women undergoing biopsy for MRI findings (81 of 202; 40%) as for those with DM/DBT findings (35 of 195; 18%).ConclusionsThe prognostic importance, and thus the clinical implications, of false-positive diagnoses made on the basis of breast MRI vs. radiographic screening differed significantly, with a reversed prevalence of high- and low-risk lesions. This should be taken into account when discussing the rate of false-positive diagnoses (i.e., PPV levels of MRI vs. radiographic screening). Current benchmarks that rate the utility of breast cancer screening programs (i.e., cancer detection rates and PPVs) do not reflect these substantial biological differences and the different prognostic implications.

Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.

Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection. We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use. Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74). While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.

Abbreviated MRI and Accelerated MRI for Screening and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

Although published studies have revealed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is by far the most effective imaging modality for cancer detection, it is currently considered cost-ineffective for screening women at an intermediate risk for breast cancer. The concept of an "abbreviated MRI" protocol has recently emerged as a possible solution for reducing the cost of MRI. The abbreviated MRI is a shortened version of the standard MRI, consisting of a single early phase dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) series. Several clinical studies have shown that this MRI protocol would not affect sensitivity or specificity for breast MRI screening purposes. In clinical practice, morphologic evaluation and kinetic assessment are 2 major components of the interpretation process. However, kinetic assessment cannot be performed with the abbreviated protocol, because multiple sets of post-contrast images are necessary for the generation of kinetic curves. "Accelerated MRI" is a collective term for imaging techniques that acquire DCE-MR images in a very short time. Published studies suggest that the kinetic assessment during the very early post-contrast phase obtained with the accelerated MRI techniques is comparable to that with the standard MRI techniques. Applying accelerated MR techniques could potentially enhance the abbreviated MRI protocol in terms of diagnostic potential, while maintaining the shorter study time. Thus, the abbreviated MRI protocol associated with accelerated MRI techniques may provide value for screening and for diagnostic purposes.

Proposed biopsy performance benchmarks for MRI based on an audit of a large academic center.

Performance benchmarks exist for mammography (MG); however, performance benchmarks for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are not yet fully developed. The purpose of our study was to perform an MRI audit based on established MG and screening MRI benchmarks and to review whether these benchmarks can be applied to an MRI practice. An IRB approved retrospective review of breast MRIs was performed at our center from 1/1/2011 through 12/31/13. For patients with biopsy recommendation, core biopsy and surgical pathology results were reviewed. The data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), positive predictive value (PPV), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of minimal cancers and axillary node negative cancers and compared with MG and screening MRI benchmarks. MRIs were also divided by screening and diagnostic indications to assess for differences in performance benchmarks amongst these two groups. Of the 2455 MRIs performed over 3-years, 1563 were performed for screening indications and 892 for diagnostic indications. With the exception of PPV2 for screening breast MRIs from 2011 to 2013, PPVs were met for our screening and diagnostic populations when compared to the MRI screening benchmarks established by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 5 Atlas® . AIR and CDR were lower for screening indications as compared to diagnostic indications. New MRI screening benchmarks can be used for screening MRI audits while the American College of Radiology (ACR) desirable goals for diagnostic MG can be used for diagnostic MRI audits. Our study corroborates established findings regarding differences in AIR and CDR amongst screening versus diagnostic indications.

Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.

Purpose To evaluate the value of mammography in detecting breast cancer in high-risk women undergoing screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods An ethics-approved, retrospective review of prospective databases was performed to identify outcomes of 3934 screening studies (1977 screening MR imaging examinations and 1957 screening mammograms) performed between January 2012 and July 2014 in 1249 high-risk women. Performance measures including recall and cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated for both mammography and MR imaging. Results A total of 45 cancers (33 invasive and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ) were diagnosed, 43 were seen with MR imaging and 14 with both mammography and MR imaging. Additional tests (further imaging and/or biopsy) were recommended in 461 screening MR imaging studies (recall rate, 23.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.5%, 25.2%), and mammography recalled 217 (recall rate, 11.1%; 95% CI: 9.7%, 12.6%). The cancer detection rate for MR imaging was 21.8 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 15.78, 29.19) and that for mammography was 7.2 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.92, 11.97; P < .001). Sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 96% and 78% respectively, and those of mammography were 31% and 89%, respectively (P < .001). Positive predictive value for MR imaging recalls was 9.3% (95% CI: 6.83%, 12.36%) and that for mammography recalls was 6.5% (95% CI: 3.57%, 10.59%). Conclusion Contemporaneous screening mammography did not have added value in detection of breast cancer for women who undergo screening MR imaging. Routine use of screening mammography in women undergoing screening breast MR imaging warrants reconsideration. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

An Abbreviated Protocol for High-risk Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact on Performance Metrics and BI-RADS Assessment

Annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended to screen high-risk populations for breast cancer, although costs are significant. This study assesses the performance of an abbreviated MRI protocol as a resource-efficient approach for screening patients at high-risk of breast cancer, and assesses whether the abbreviated protocol alters the assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category. This is a prospective paired cohort study performed in an academic ambulatory setting. MRI images of women at high risk of breast cancer were reviewed using an abbreviated MRI protocol, followed by an immediate review of additional sequences included in a full diagnostic protocol. BI-RADS assessments, including all changes and interpretation times, were recorded for both the abbreviated and full protocol reviews. Cancer detection rate, positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. A total of 1052 MRI cases were reviewed. The cancer detection rate was 13.3 per 1000 with a PPV3 of 30.4% based on the full protocol. Review of sequences included in the full protocol resulted in a change in the final BI-RADS assessments in 3.4% of the cases, the majority of which did not change clinical management with respect to biopsy. The sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated and full protocols were not significantly different. This pilot study of an abbreviated MRI protocol demonstrates effective performance in cancer detection. BI-RADS assessments were rarely altered with the additional information afforded by the full protocol. The abbreviated protocol holds promise for resource-efficient breast cancer screening in high-risk women.

Systematic development of an abbreviated protocol for screening breast magnetic resonance imaging

Rationale & objectivesWe sought to develop an abbreviated protocol (AP) for breast MRI that maximizes lesion detection by assessing each lesion not seen on mammography by each acquisition from a full diagnostic protocol (FDP).Materials & methods671 asymptomatic women (mean 55.7 years, range 40–80) with a negative mammogram were prospectively enrolled in this IRB approved study. All lesions on MRI not visualized on mammography were analyzed, reported, and suspicious lesions biopsied. In parallel, all FDP MRI acquisitions were scored by lesion to eventually create a high-yield AP.ResultsFDP breast MRI detected 452 findings not visible on mammography, including 17 suspicious lesions recommended for biopsy of which seven (PPV 41.2%) were malignant in six women. Mean size of the four invasive malignancies was 1.9 cm (range 0.7–4.1), all node negative; three lesions in two women were ductal carcinoma in situ. Nine biopsied lesions were benign, mean size 1.2 cm (range 0.6–2.0). All biopsied lesions were in women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense on mammography, n = 367), for a cancer detection rate of 16.3/1000 examinations in this subpopulation. These data were used to identify four high-yield acquisitions: T2, T1-pre-contrast, T11.5, and T16 to create the AP with a scan time of 7.5 min compared to 24 min for the FDP.ConclusionsOur analysis of a FDP MRI in a mammographically negative group identified four high-yield acquisitions that could be used for rapid screening of women for breast cancer that retains critical information on morphology, histopathology, and kinetic activity to facilitate detection of suspicious lesions.