Elissa R. Price

The California Breast Density Information Group: A Collaborative Response to the Issues of Breast Density, Breast Cancer Risk, and Breast Density Notification Legislation

In anticipation of breast density notification legislation in the state of California, which would require notification of women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breast tissue, a working group of breast imagers and breast cancer risk specialists was formed to provide a common response framework. The California Breast Density Information Group identified key elements and implications of the law, researching scientific evidence needed to develop a robust response. In particular, issues of risk associated with dense breast tissue, masking of cancers by dense tissue on mammograms, and the efficacy, benefits, and harms of supplementary screening tests were studied and consensus reached. National guidelines and peer-reviewed published literature were used to recommend that women with dense breast tissue at screening mammography follow supplemental screening guidelines based on breast cancer risk assessment. The goal of developing educational materials for referring clinicians and patients was reached with the construction of an easily accessible Web site that contains information about breast density, breast cancer risk assessment, and supplementary imaging. This multi-institutional, multidisciplinary approach may be useful for organizations to frame responses as similar legislation is passed across the United States. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Breast Density Legislation: Mandatory Disclosure to Patients, Alternative Screening, Billing, Reimbursement

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is describe the origins and provisions of breast density legislation and to evaluate these mandates with regard to the balance between the potential benefit of supplementary screening and the substantial risk of false-positive findings and the adjunctive tests they necessitate. CONCLUSION. Many states have passed breast density notification legislation, and federal legislation is pending. These mandates present a number of challenges for patients and physicians. There is no consensus regarding the need for supplementary testing solely because a woman has dense breasts. The failure of density legislation to require insurance coverage in many states further complicates implementation of the mandates.

The Impact of Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy on Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Fibroglandular Tissue

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) on background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) seen on breast MRI.MethodsRetrospective review identified 21 BRCA mutation carriers who underwent breast MRI before and after elective BSO. After exclusion of patients placed on postoperative hormone replacement therapy, there were 18 eligible patients. Blinded to surgical status, three independent readers used categorical scales to rate BPE (minimal, mild, moderate, marked) and the amount of FGT (fatty, scattered, heterogeneously dense, dense) on pre- and post-BSO MRI examinations. The sign test was used to assess for changes in the categorical ratings of BPE and FGT.ResultsSignificant proportions of women demonstrated decreases in BPE and in the amount of FGT following oophorectomy (P = 0.004 and 0.02, respectively.) BPE decreases were larger and seen earlier than FGT changes. There was no significant relationship between age/body mass index and changes in BPE and FGT.ConclusionsBPE and the amount of FGT seen on breast MRI are significantly decreased by oophorectomy; BPE decreases to a greater extent and earlier than FGT.Key Points• Background parenchymal enhancement significantly decreases at breast MRI following oophorectomy.• Fibroglandular tissue significantly decreases on breast MRI following oophorectomy.• Decrease in background parenchymal enhancement is greater than in fibroglandular tissue.• Decrease in background parenchymal enhancement occurs earlier than in fibroglandular tissue.

The Potential Impact of Risk-Based Screening Mammography in Women 40–49 Years Old

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of very strong family history and extremely dense tissue in women 40-49 years old with breast cancer detected on screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS All cancers detected by screening mammography at our institution between January 1997 and November 2012 in 40- to 49-year-old women were retrospectively identified. Those with a personal history of breast cancer were excluded. Family history, breast density, type of malignancy, hormone receptor status, and lymph node status were recorded. RESULTS One hundred thirty-six cases of breast cancer were identified on screening mammography in 40- to 49-year-old women; 50% were invasive cancers, and 50%, ductal carcinoma in situ. Very strong family history was absent in 88%, and extremely dense breast tissue was absent in 86%. Seventy-six percent of patients had neither very strong family history nor extremely dense breasts, including 79% of the cases of invasive cancers, of which 25% had axillary nodal involvement and 89% were estrogen receptor positive. CONCLUSION Very strong family history and extremely dense breast tissue were absent in most 40- to 49-year-old women with breast cancer detected at screening mammography. These cancers were frequently invasive (often with nodal metastases) and treatable (hormone receptor positive). Reducing the number of women to be screened in this age group by using this risk-based approach would reduce the number of screen-detected cancers by more than 75%, thereby precluding the benefit of mortality reduction. Even using a risk-based strategy with an expanded definition of high risk that included any first-degree family history, extremely dense tissue, or both, 66% of malignancies would still be missed.

Recognizing Artifacts and Optimizing Breast MRI at 1.5 and 3 T

OBJECTIVE This article will discuss routine 1.5 and 3 T MRI of the breast as well as illustrate several examples of patient-related and technical artifacts one might encounter. Suggestions to help eliminate these artifacts and optimize images will be provided. CONCLUSION Artifacts seen on breast MR images can degrade image quality and obscure important findings. Recognizing artifacts and understanding how to address and troubleshoot them is essential for any radiologist interpreting breast MRI.

How to use magnetic resonance imaging following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highly sensitive in identifying residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and consequently is a commonly used imaging modality in locally advanced breast cancer patients. In these patients, tumor response is an important prognostic indicator. However, discrepancies between MRI findings and surgical pathology are well documented. Overestimation of residual disease by MRI may result in greater surgery than is actually required while underestimation may result in insufficient surgery. Thus, it is important to understand when MRI findings are reliable and when they are less accurate. MRI most accurately predicts pathology in triple negative, Her2 positive and hormone receptor negative tumors, especially if they are of a solid imaging phenotype. In these cases, post-NAC MRI is highly reliable for surgical planning. Hormone receptor positive cancers and those demonstrating non mass enhancement show lower concordance with surgical pathology, making surgical guidance more nebulous in these cases. Radiologists and surgeons must assess MRI response to NAC in the context of tumor subtype. Indiscriminate interpretations will prevent MRI from achieving its maximum potential in the pre-operative setting.

Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association between Oncotype DX Test Recurrence Score and BI-RADS Mammographic and Breast MR Imaging Features

Purpose To evaluate the association between Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features and breast cancer recurrence risk in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who underwent the Oncotype DX assay. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant protocol, 408 patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2013 who underwent the Oncotype DX assay were identified. Mammographic and MR imaging features were retrospectively collected according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Linear regression assessed the association between imaging features and Oncotype DX test recurrence score (ODxRS), and post hoc pairwise comparisons assessed ODxRS means by using imaging features. Results Mammographic breast density was inversely associated with ODxRS (P ≤ .05). Average ODxRS for density category A was 24.4 and that for density category D was 16.5 (P < .02). Both indistinct mass margins and fine linear branching calcifications at mammography were significantly associated with higher ODxRS (P < .01 and P < .03, respectively). Masses with indistinct margins had an average ODxRS of 31.3, which significantly differed from the ODxRS of 18.5 for all other mass margins (P < .01). The average ODxRS for fine linear branching calcifications was 29.6, whereas the ODxRS for all other suspicious calcification morphologies was 19.4 (P < .03). Average ODxRS was significantly higher for irregular mass margins at MR imaging compared with spiculated mass margins (24.0 vs 17.6; P < .02). The presence of nonmass enhancement at MR imaging was associated with lower ODxRS than was its absence (16.4 vs 19.9; P < .05). Conclusion The BI-RADS features of mammographic breast density, calcification morphology, mass margins at mammography and MR imaging, and nonmass enhancement at MR imaging have the potential to serve as imaging biomarkers of breast cancer recurrence risk. Further prospective studies involving larger patient cohorts are needed to validate these preliminary findings.

The Developing Asymmetry: Revisiting a Perceptual and Diagnostic Challenge

Developing asymmetry is a subtype of asymmetry that has changed in appearance over time. This change implies a higher level of suspicion than other types of asymmetry. This article aims to clarify and review (a) the defining features of a developing asymmetry, (b) tools to facilitate its appropriate identification and evaluation at mammography and sonography, (c) relevant percutaneous biopsy considerations, and (d) benign and malignant pathologies that may present as developing asymmetries.

Evidence to Support Screening Women in Their 40s

A large body of evidence demonstrates a 30% to 50% mortality benefit of screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49. Because of more rapid cancer growth rates in younger women, annual screening is more effective than biennial. Studies indicate that selective screening of women aged 40 to 49 would miss the majority of breast cancers. If implemented, recent US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening guidelines, which recommend against routine screening of women in their 40s, could result in thousands of preventable breast cancer deaths per year. Vigilance is needed to safeguard younger womens access to screening mammography.

Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities

Breast density notification laws, passed in 19 states as of October 2014, mandate that patients be informed of their breast density. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this legislation on radiology practices, including performance of breast cancer risk assessment and supplemental screening studies. A 20‐question anonymous web‐based survey was emailed to radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging between August 2013 and March 2014. Statistical analysis was performed using Fishers exact test. Around 121 radiologists from 110 facilities in 34 USA states and 1 Canadian site responded. About 50% (55/110) of facilities had breast density legislation, 36% of facilities (39/109) performed breast cancer risk assessment (one facility did not respond). Risk assessment was performed as a new task in response to density legislation in 40% (6/15) of facilities in states with notification laws. However, there was no significant difference in performing risk assessment between facilities in states with a law and those without (p < 0.831). In anticipation of breast density legislation, 33% (16/48), 6% (3/48), and 6% (3/48) of facilities in states with laws implemented handheld whole breast ultrasound (WBUS), automated WBUS, and tomosynthesis, respectively. The ratio of facilities offering handheld WBUS was significantly higher in states with a law than in states without (p < 0.001). In response to breast density legislation, more than 33% of facilities are offering supplemental screening with WBUS and tomosynthesis, and many are performing formal risk assessment for determining patient management.