Wendie A. Berg

Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer

CONTEXT Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Detection of Breast Cancer with Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk

CONTEXT Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Breast Cancer Screening With Imaging: Recommendations From the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the Use of Mammography, Breast MRI, Breast Ultrasound, and Other Technologies for the Detection of Clinically Occult Breast Cancer

Screening for breast cancer with mammography has been shown to decrease mortality from breast cancer, and mammography is the mainstay of screening for clinically occult disease. Mammography, however, has well-recognized limitations, and recently, other imaging including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging have been used as adjunctive screening tools, mainly for women who may be at increased risk for the development of breast cancer. The Society of Breast Imaging and the Breast Imaging Commission of the ACR are issuing these recommendations to provide guidance to patients and clinicians on the use of imaging to screen for breast cancer. Wherever possible, the recommendations are based on available evidence. Where evidence is lacking, the recommendations are based on consensus opinions of the fellows and executive committee of the Society of Breast Imaging and the members of the Breast Imaging Commission of the ACR.

Shear-wave Elastography Improves the Specificity of Breast US: The BE1 Multinational Study of 939 Masses

PURPOSE To determine whether adding shear-wave (SW) elastographic features could improve accuracy of ultrasonographic (US) assessment of breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS From September 2008 to September 2010, 958 women consented to repeat standard breast US supplemented by quantitative SW elastographic examination in this prospective multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. B-mode Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) features and assessments were recorded. SW elastographic evaluation (mean, maximum, and minimum elasticity of stiffest portion of mass and surrounding tissue; lesion-to-fat elasticity ratio; ratio of SW elastographic-to-B-mode lesion diameter or area; SW elastographic lesion shape and homogeneity) was performed. Qualitative color SW elastographic stiffness was assessed independently. Nine hundred thirty-nine masses were analyzable; 102 BI-RADS category 2 masses were assumed to be benign; reference standard was available for 837 category 3 or higher lesions. Considering BI-RADS category 4a or higher as test positive for malignancy, effect of SW elastographic features on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity after reclassifying category 3 and 4a masses was determined. RESULTS Median participant age was 50 years; 289 of 939 (30.8%) masses were malignant (median mass size, 12 mm). B-mode BI-RADS AUC was 0.950; eight of 303 (2.6%) BI-RADS category 3 masses, 18 of 193 (9.3%) category 4a lesions, 41 of 97 (42%) category 4b lesions, 42 of 57 (74%) category 4c lesions, and 180 of 187 (96.3%) category 5 lesions were malignant. By using visual color stiffness to selectively upgrade category 3 and lack of stiffness to downgrade category 4a masses, specificity improved from 61.1% (397 of 650) to 78.5% (510 of 650) (P<.001); AUC increased to 0.962 (P=.005). Oval shape on SW elastographic images and quantitative maximum elasticity of 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less improved specificity (69.4% [451 of 650] and 77.4% [503 of 650], P<.001 for both), without significant improvement in sensitivity or AUC. CONCLUSION Adding SW elastographic features to BI-RADS feature analysis improved specificity of breast US mass assessment without loss of sensitivity.

High-Resolution Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with Compression (“Positron Emission Mammography”) is Highly Accurate in Depicting Primary Breast Cancer

Abstract:  We sought to prospectively assess the diagnostic performance of a high‐resolution positron emission tomography (PET) scanner using mild breast compression (positron emission mammography [PEM]). Data were collected on concomitant medical conditions to assess potential confounding factors. At four centers, 94 consecutive women with known breast cancer or suspicious breast lesions received 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) intravenously, followed by PEM scans. Readers were provided clinical histories and x‐ray mammograms (when available). After excluding inevaluable cases and two cases of lymphoma, PEM readings were correlated with histopathology for 92 lesions in 77 women: 77 index lesions (42 malignant), 3 ipsilateral lesions (3 malignant), and 12 contralateral lesions (3 malignant). Of 48 cancers, 16 (33%) were clinically evident; 11 (23%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 37 (77%) were invasive (30 ductal, 4 lobular, and 3 mixed; median size 21 mm). PEM depicted 10 of 11 (91%) DCIS and 33 of 37 (89%) invasive cancers. PEM was positive in 1 of 2 T1a tumors, 4 of 6 T1b tumors, 7 of 7 T1c tumors, and 4 of 4 cases where tumor size was not available (e.g., no surgical follow‐up). PEM sensitivity for detecting cancer was 90%, specificity 86%, positive predictive value (PPV) 88%, negative predictive value (NPV) 88%, accuracy 88%, and area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve (Az) 0.918. In three patients, cancer foci were identified only on PEM, significantly changing patient management. Excluding eight diabetic subjects and eight subjects whose lesions were characterized as clearly benign with conventional imaging, PEM sensitivity was 91%, specificity 93%, PPV 95%, NPV 88%, accuracy 92%, and Az 0.949 when interpreted with mammographic and clinical findings. FDG PEM has high diagnostic accuracy for breast lesions, including DCIS. 

Rupture of silicone-gel breast implants: causes, sequelae, and diagnosis

Silicone-gel-filled breast implants have been widely used for breast augmentation and reconstruction after mastectomy. The rate of implant rupture and its sequelae are not known. We review the frequency, causes, sequelae, and detection of implant rupture. Materials testing of removed implants provides evidence that as implants age in vivo, they weaken and may rupture. Sequelae of rupture include migration of gel accompanied by inflammation and silicone granuloma formation. The role of free silicone gel in relation to idiopathic or atypical connective tissue disease is not clear. Magnetic resonance imaging is substantially more sensitive in the detection of rupture than is mammography or ultrasonography.

Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?

OBJECTIVE This article reviews breast cancer risk assessment and the rationale for current screening guidelines, including when to consider using supplemental screening with MRI or sonography in addition to mammography, and discusses other emerging technologies. Radiologists can help identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and can help to recommend when and which techniques to perform for this additional screening. CONCLUSION Mammography remains the mainstay of breast cancer screening. Mammography should be performed as digital imaging when possible in women with dense breasts. In women at high risk, particularly if they also have dense breasts, annual MRI is recommended, although further validation of outcomes is needed. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, especially those with other risk factors, and in high-risk women with dense breasts who are unable to tolerate MRI, supplemental sonography screening is an option at facilities with availability of qualified personnel. Developing technologies are not appropriate for screening at this time, although further study is encouraged.

Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness of Positron Emission Mammography and MR Imaging in Presurgical Planning for the Ipsilateral Breast

PURPOSE To determine the performance of positron emission mammography (PEM), as compared with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including the effect on surgical management, in ipsilateral breasts with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four hundred seventy-two women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were offered breast-conserving surgery consented from September 2006 to November 2008 to participate in a multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. Participants underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PEM in randomized order; resultant images were interpreted independently. Added biopsies and changes in surgical procedure for the ipsilateral breast were correlated with histopathologic findings. Performance characteristics were compared by using the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS Three hundred eighty-eight women (median age, 58 years; age range, 26-93 years; median estimated tumor size, 1.5 cm) completed the study. Additional cancers were found in 82 (21%) women (82 ipsilateral breasts; median tumor size, 0.7 cm). Twenty-eight (34%) of the 82 breasts were identified with both PEM and MR imaging; 21 (26%) breasts, with MR imaging only; 14 (17%) breasts, with PEM only; and seven (8.5%) breasts, with mammography and ultrasonography. Twelve (15%) cases of additional cancer were missed at all imaging examinations. Integration of PEM and MR imaging increased cancer detection-to 61 (74%) of 82 breasts versus 49 (60%) of 82 breasts identified with MR imaging alone (P < .001). Of 306 breasts without additional cancer, 279 (91.2%) were correctly assessed with PEM compared with 264 (86.3%) that were correctly assessed with MR imaging (P = .03). The positive predictive value of biopsy prompted by PEM findings (47 [66%] of 71 cases) was higher than that of biopsy prompted by MR findings (61 [53%] of 116 cases) (P = .016). Of 116 additional cancers, 61 (53%) were depicted by MR imaging and 47 (41%) were depicted by PEM (P = .043). Fifty-six (14%) of the 388 women required mastectomy: 40 (71%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 20 (36%) were identified with PEM (P < .001). Eleven (2.8%) women underwent unnecessary mastectomy, which was prompted by only MR findings in five women, by only PEM findings in one, and by PEM and MR findings in five. Thirty-three (8.5%) women required wider excision: 24 (73%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 22 (67%) were identified with PEM. CONCLUSION PEM and MR imaging had comparable breast-level sensitivity, although MR imaging had greater lesion-level sensitivity and more accurately depicted the need for mastectomy. PEM had greater specificity at the breast and lesion levels. Eighty-nine (23%) participants required more extensive surgery: 61 (69%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 41 (46%) were identified with PEM (P = .003). Fourteen (3.6%) women had tumors seen only at PEM.

Reasons Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer Refuse Breast MR Imaging Screening: ACRIN 6666

PURPOSE To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants. RESULTS Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons. CONCLUSION Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Preliminary results for positron emission mammography: real-time functional breast imaging in a conventional mammography gantry

In order to optimally integrate radiotracer breast imaging within the breast clinic, anatomy and pathology should be easily correlated with functional nuclear medicine breast images. As a first step in the development of a hybrid functional/anatomic breast imaging platform with biopsy capability, a conventional X-ray mammography gantry was modified to image the compressed breast with positron emitters. Phantom studies with the positron emission mammography (PEM) device showed that a 1-cc hot spot could be detected within 5 min. A preliminary clinical trial demonstrated in vivo visualization of primary breast cancer within 4 min. For sites where positron-emitting radionuclides are available, PEM promises to achieve low-cost directed functional examination of breast abnormalities, with the potential for achieving X-ray correlation and image-guided biopsy.