Yiming Gao

Evaluation of a known breast cancer using an abbreviated breast MRI protocol: Correlation of imaging characteristics and pathology with lesion detection and conspicuity

OBJECTIVE This study evaluates use of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging protocol with T2-weighted imaging in detecting biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is an institutional review board approved retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer (88% invasive; 12% in situ) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. In three separate sessions, three breast imagers evaluated (1) T1-weighted non-contrast, post-contrast and post-contrast subtracted images, (2) T1-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging, and (3) T1-weighted images and T2-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging. Protocols were compared for cancer detection, reading time and lesion conspicuity. An independent breast radiologist retrospectively analyzed initial enhancement ratio of cancers and retrospectively reviewed lesion morphology and final pathology. RESULTS All 107 cancers were identified at first protocol by at least one reader; five cancers were missed by either one or two readers. One cancer was missed by one reader at protocols two and three. Mean percentage detection for protocol one was 97.8%; protocol two, 99.4%, protocol three, 99.4%. T2-weighted images did not alter cancer detection but increased lesion conspicuity for 2/3 readers. 3/5 missed lesions were low grade cancers. Initial enhancement ratio was positively associated with increasing tumor grade (p=0.031) and pathology (p=0.002). Reader interpretation time decreased and lesion conspicuity increased as initial enhancement ratio increased. CONCLUSION Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging has high rate of detection for known breast cancer and short interpretation time. T2 weighted imaging increased lesion conspicuity without altering detection rate. Initial enhancement ratio correlated with invasive disease and tumor grade.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale). RESULTS There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score ≥ 4/5). CONCLUSIONS DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.

Background parenchymal enhancement over exam time in patients with and without breast cancer

To compare background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) over time in patients with and without breast cancer.

Outcomes of Preoperative MRI-Guided Needle Localization of Nonpalpable Mammographically Occult Breast Lesions

OBJECTIVE MRI-guided needle localization allows access to MRI-detected mammographically occult breast lesions that are not amenable to MRI-guided biopsy. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and outcomes of MRI-guided needle localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-nine consecutive breast lesions that underwent preoperative MRI-guided needle localization were identified. Clinical indications for breast MRI, reasons for performing MRI-guided needle localization, and surgical pathology results were recorded. Lesion characteristics, procedure time, and complications were assessed. RESULTS Of 99 lesions, 60 (60.6%) were in a location inaccessible for MRI biopsy, necessitating MRI-guided needle localization. Histologic evaluation revealed 38 (38.4%) carcinomas, 31 (31.3%) high-risk lesions, and 30 (30.3%) benign lesions. Carcinoma was more likely to be found in women with known cancer (31/61 [50.8%]; p = 0.003) than in women undergoing imaging for high-risk screening (2/18 [11.1%]) or problem solving (6/20 [30%]). Masses (p = 0.013) and foci (p < 0.001) were more likely to be malignant than were lesions with nonmass enhancement. Foci were significantly more often malignant compared with all other lesion types (9/10 [90%]; p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) procedure time was 32.9 ± 9.39 minutes. All lesions were occult on specimen radiographs. There were no procedure-related complications. CONCLUSION The positive predictive value of MRI-guided needle localization (38.4%) is comparable to that of mammography- and tomosynthesis-guided localizations and is highest in women with a known diagnosis of cancer. It is highly accurate in targeting small enhancing lesions, thereby improving surgical management. MRI-guided needle localization is a safe, accurate, and time-efficient procedure.

Delineating Extramammary Findings at Breast MR Imaging

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the only breast imaging modality that consistently encompasses extramammary structures in the thorax and upper abdomen. Incidental extramammary findings on breast MR images of patients with a history of breast cancer or other malignancies are significantly more likely to be malignant and may affect staging and treatment. An understanding of the frequency, distribution, and context of extramammary findings on breast MR images and a familiarity with common and uncommon sites of breast cancer metastasis inform the differential diagnosis and prompt the appropriate diagnostic next step, to differentiate benign from malignant findings. High-yield organ systems on breast MR images, as reflected by a high positive predictive value for malignancy, are correlated with known distant sites of breast cancer metastasis in the bone, lung, liver, and lymph nodes. Staging is considered when disease involves the skin and chest wall. Unusual sites of breast cancer metastasis from invasive lobular carcinoma are discussed, including the gastrointestinal tract, peritoneum, and adrenal glands. Nonmalignant clinically important findings involving the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems are reviewed, and potential pitfalls in diagnosis and interpretation are highlighted. A consistently systematic diagnostic approach is emphasized for identifying extramammary abnormalities on breast MR images. All things considered, the radiologist should be able to improve diagnostic sensitivity and specificity while interpreting extramammary findings on breast MR images. ©RSNA, 2017.

Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity.

To compare a novel multicoil compressed sensing technique with flexible temporal resolution, golden‐angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP), to conventional fat‐suppressed spoiled three‐dimensional (3D) gradient‐echo (volumetric interpolated breath‐hold examination, VIBE) MRI in evaluating the conspicuity of benign and malignant breast lesions.

Clinical applicability and relevance of fibroglandular tissue segmentation on routine T1 weighted breast MRI

PURPOSE To evaluate clinical applicability of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) segmentation on routine T1 weighted breast MRI and compare FGT quantification with radiologist assessment. METHODS FGT was segmented on 232 breasts and quantified, and was assessed qualitatively by four breast imagers. RESULTS FGT segmentation was successful in all 232 breasts. Agreement between radiologists and quantified FGT was moderate to substantial (kappa=0.52-0.67); lower quantified FGT was associated with disagreement between radiologists and quantified FGT (P≤0.002). CONCLUSIONS FGT segmentation was successful using routine T1 weighted breast MRI. Radiologists were less consistent with quantified results in breasts with lower quantified FGT.

What Happens after a Diagnosis of High-Risk Breast Lesion at Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Biopsy? An Observational Study of Postdiagnosis Management and Imaging Adherence

Purpose To assess adherence with annual or biennial screening mammography after a diagnosis of high-risk lesion(s) at stereotactic biopsy with or without surgical excision and to identify clinical factors that may affect screening adherence after a high-risk diagnosis. Materials and Methods This institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study included 208 patients who underwent stereotactic biopsy between January 2012 and December 2014 that revealed a high-risk lesion. Whether the patient underwent surgical excision and/or follow-up mammography was documented. Adherence of these women to a protocol of subsequent mammography within 1 year (9-18 months) or within 2 years (9-30 months) was compared with that of 45 508 women with normal screening mammograms who were imaged during the same time period at the same institution. Possible factors relevant to postdiagnosis management and screening adherence were assessed. Consultation with a breast surgeon was identified by reviewing clinical notes. Uptake of pharmacologic chemoprevention following diagnosis (patient decision to take chemopreventive medications) was assessed. The Fisher exact test was used to compare annual or biennial screening adherence rates. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of whether women returned for screening within selected time frames. Results In total, 913 (1.3%) of 67 874 women were given a recommendation to undergo stereotactic biopsy, resulting in diagnosis of 208 (22.8%) of 913 high-risk lesions. Excluding those with a prior personal history of breast cancer or upgrade to cancer at surgery, 124 (66.7%) of 186 women underwent surgery and 62 (33.3%) did not. Overall post-high-risk diagnosis adherence to annual or biennial mammography was similar to that in control subjects (annual, 56.4% vs 50.8%, P = .160; biennial, 62.0% vs 60.1%, P = .630). Adherence was significantly better in the surgical group than in the nonsurgical group for annual mammography (70.0% vs 32.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 5.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4, 10.1; P < .001) and for biennial mammography (74.3% vs 40.0%; OR = 4.3; 95% CI: 2.1, 8.8; P < .001). Among the patients in the nonsurgical group, those adherent to annual or biennial mammography were significantly more likely to have seen a breast surgeon than the nonadherent women (annual, 77.3% vs 35.7%, P = .005; biennial, 67.9% vs 36.4%, P = .045). All patients receiving chemopreventive agents underwent a surgical consultation (100%; n = 21). Conclusion Although diagnosis of a high-risk lesion at stereotactic breast biopsy did not compromise overall adherence to subsequent mammographic screening, patients without surgical excision, particularly those who did not undergo a surgical consultation, had significantly lower imaging adherence and chemoprevention uptake as compared with their counterparts who underwent surgery, suggesting that specialist care may be important in optimizing management.

Male Breast Cancer in the Age of Genetic Testing: An Opportunity for Early Detection, Tailored Therapy, and Surveillance

In detection, treatment, and follow-up, male breast cancer has historically lagged behind female breast cancer. On the whole, breast cancer is less common among men than among women, limiting utility of screening, yet the incidence of male breast cancer is rising, and there are men at high risk for breast cancer. While women at high risk for breast cancer are well characterized, with clearly established guidelines for screening, supplemental screening, risk prevention, counseling, and advocacy, men at high risk for breast cancer are poorly identified and represent a blind spot in public health. Today, more standardized genetic counseling and wider availability of genetic testing are allowing identification of high-risk male relatives of women with breast cancer, as well as men with genetic mutations predisposing to breast cancer. This could provide a new opportunity to update our approach to male breast cancer. This article reviews male breast cancer demographics, risk factors, tumor biology, and oncogenetics; recognizes how male breast cancer differs from its female counterpart; highlights its diagnostic challenges; discusses the implications of the widening clinical use of multigene panel testing; outlines current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (version 1, 2018) for high-risk men; and explores the possible utility of targeted screening and surveillance. Understanding the current state of male breast cancer management and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of male breast cancer detection toward targeted precision medicine may be the answer to improving clinical outcomes of this uncommon disease. ©RSNA, 2018.

Hormonal Effects on Breast Density, Fibroglandular Tissue, and Background Parenchymal Enhancement

Breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) are recognized independent biomarkers for breast cancer risk. For this reason, reproducibility and consistency in objective assessment of these parameters at mammography (breast density) and at magnetic resonance imaging (fibroglandular tissue and BPE) are clinically relevant. However, breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE are manifestations of dynamic physiologic processes and may change in response to both endogenous and exogenous hormonal stimulation. It is therefore important for the radiologist to recognize settings in which hormonal stimulation may alter the appearance of these biomarkers at imaging and to appreciate how such changes may affect risk assessment, cancer detection, and even prognosis. The purpose of this review article is therefore to review key features and means of evaluating breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE at imaging; to detail how endogenous and exogenous hormonal stimuli may affect breast density, fibroglandular tissue, and BPE, potentially affecting radiologic interpretation; and, finally, to provide an update regarding current hormone treatment guidelines and indications that may result in imaging changes through hormone modulation. ©RSNA, 2018.