Search

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to evaluate radiomics analysis coupled with machine learning (ML) of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) radiomics models separately and combined as multiparametric MRI for improved breast cancer detection. Consecutive patients (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, January 2018-March 2020; Medical University Vienna, from January 2011-August 2014) with a suspicious enhancing breast tumor on breast MRI categorized as BI-RADS 4 and who subsequently underwent image-guided biopsy were included. In 93 patients (mean age: 49 years ± 12 years; 100% women), there were 104 lesions (mean size: 22.8 mm; range: 7-99 mm), 46 malignant and 58 benign. Radiomics features were calculated. Subsequently, the five most significant features were fitted into multivariable modeling to produce a robust ML model for discriminating between benign and malignant lesions. A medium Gaussian support vector machine (SVM) model with five-fold cross validation was developed for each modality. A model based on DWI-extracted features achieved an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88), whereas a model based on DCE-extracted features yielded an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75-0.91). A multiparametric radiomics model combining DCE- and DWI-extracted features showed the best AUC (0.85; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92) and diagnostic accuracy (81.7%; 95% CI: 73.0-88.6). In conclusion, radiomics analysis coupled with ML of multiparametric MRI allows an improved evaluation of suspicious enhancing breast tumors recommended for biopsy on clinical breast MRI, facilitating accurate breast cancer diagnosis while reducing unnecessary benign breast biopsies.

The rationale was to assess whether there are differences in multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI biomarkers of contralateral healthy breast tissue in patients with benign and malignant breast tumors. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved prospective single-institution study, 141 women with imaging abnormalities on mammography or sonography (BI-RADS 4/5) underwent combined 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the breast at 3T with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging, and the radiotracer 18F-FDG. In all patients, the following imaging biomarkers were recorded for the contralateral (tumor-free) breast: breast parenchymal uptake (BPU) (from 18F-FDG PET), mean apparent diffusion coefficient (from diffusion-weighted imaging), background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) (from MRI). Appropriate statistical tests were used to assess differences in 18F-FDG PET/MRI biomarkers between patients with benign and malignant lesions. Results: There were 100 malignant and 41 benign lesions. BPE was minimal in 61 patients, mild in 56, moderate in 19, and marked in 5. BPE differed significantly (P < 0.001) between patients with benign and malignant lesions, with patients with cancer demonstrating decreased BPE in the contralateral tumor-free breast. FGT approached but did not reach significance (P = 0.055). BPU was 1.5 for patients with minimal BPE, 1.9 for mild BPE, 2.2 for moderate BPE, and 1.9 for marked BPE. BPU differed significantly between patients with benign lesions (mean, 1.9) and patients with malignant lesions (mean, 1.8) (P < 0.001). Mean apparent diffusion coefficient did not differ between groups (P = 0.19). Conclusion: Differences in multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI biomarkers, obtained from contralateral tumor-free breast tissue, exist between patients with benign and patients with malignant breast tumors. Contralateral BPE, BPU, and FGT are decreased in breast cancer patients and may potentially serve as imaging biomarkers for the presence of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Available data proving the value of DWI for breast cancer diagnosis is mainly for enhancing masses; DWI may be less sensitive and specific in non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DWI using different ROI measurement approaches and ADC metrics in breast lesions presenting as NME lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 95 patients who underwent multiparametric MRI with DCE and DWI from September 2007 to July 2013 and who were diagnosed with a suspicious NME (BI-RADS 4/5) were included. Twenty-nine patients were excluded for lesion non-visibility on DWI (n = 24: 12 benign and 12 malignant) and poor DWI quality (n = 5: 1 benign and 4 malignant). Two readers independently assessed DWI and DCE-MRI findings in two separate randomized readings using different ADC metrics and ROI approaches. NME lesions were classified as either benign (> 1.3 × 10-3 mm2/s) or malignant (≤ 1.3 × 10-3 mm2/s). Histopathology was the standard of reference. ROC curves were plotted, and AUCs were determined. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was measured. RESULTS: There were 39 malignant (59%) and 27 benign (41%) lesions in 66 (65 women, 1 man) patients (mean age, 51.8 years). The mean ADC value of the darkest part of the tumor (Dptu) achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy, with AUCs of up to 0.71. Inter-reader agreement was highest with Dptu ADC max (CCC 0.42) and lowest with the point tumor (Ptu) ADC min (CCC = - 0.01). Intra-reader agreement was highest with Wtu ADC mean (CCC = 0.44 for reader 1, 0.41 for reader 2), but this was not associated with the highest diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of DWI with ADC mapping is limited in NME lesions. Thirty-one percent of lesions presenting as NME on DCE-MRI could not be evaluated with DWI, and therefore, DCE-MRI remains indispensable. Best results were achieved using Dptu 2D ROI measurement and ADC mean.

BACKGROUND: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping is one of the most useful additional MRI parameters to improve diagnostic accuracy and is now often used in a multiparameric imaging setting for breast tumor detection and characterization. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether different ADC metrics can also be used for prediction of receptor status, proliferation rate, and molecular subtype in invasive breast cancer. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: In all, 107 patients with invasive breast cancer met the inclusion criteria (mean age 57 years, range 32-87) and underwent multiparametric breast MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, readout-segmented echo planar imaging (rsEPI) with IR fat suppression, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) T1 -weighted imaging, T2 -weighted turbo-spin echo (TSE) with fatsat. ASSESSMENT: Two readers independently drew a region of interest on ADC maps on the whole tumor (WTu), and on its darkest part (DpTu). Minimum, mean, and maximum ADC values of both WTu and DpTu were compared for receptor status, proliferation rate, and molecular subtypes. STATISTICAL TESTS: Wilcoxon rank sum, Mann-Whitney U-tests for associations between radiologic features and histopathology; histogram and q-q plots, Shapiro-Wilks test to assess normality, concordance correlation coefficient for precision and accuracy; receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. RESULTS: Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status had significantly different ADC values for both readers. Maximum WTu (P = 0.0004 and 0.0005) and mean WTu (P = 0.0101 and 0.0136) were significantly lower for ER-positive tumors, while PR-positive tumors had significantly lower maximum WTu values (P = 0.0089 and 0.0047). Maximum WTu ADC was the only metric that was significantly different for molecular subtypes for both readers (P = 0.0100 and 0.0132) and enabled differentiation of luminal tumors from nonluminal (P = 0.0068 and 0.0069) with an area under the curve of 0.685 for both readers. DATA CONCLUSION: Maximum WTu ADC values may be used to differentiate luminal from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:836-846.

PURPOSE: To develop a multiparametric [18F]FDG positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) model for breast cancer diagnosis incorporating imaging biomarkers of breast tumors and contralateral healthy breast tissue. METHODS: In this prospective study and retrospective data analysis, 141 patients (mean 57 years) with an imaging abnormality detected on mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS 4/5) underwent combined multiparametric [18F]FDG PET/MRI with PET/computed tomography and multiparametric MRI of the breast at 3 T. Images were evaluated and the following were recorded: for the tumor, BI-RADS descriptors on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, mean apparent diffusion co-efficient (ADCmean) on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) on [18F]FDG-PET; and for the contralateral healthy breast, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) on DCE-MRI, ADCmean on DWI, and SUVmax. Histopathology served as standard of reference. Uni-, bi-, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationships between malignancy and imaging features. Predictive discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions was examined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: There were 100 malignant and 41 benign lesions (size: median 1.9, range 0.5-10 cm). The multivariate regression model incorporating significant univariate predictors identified tumor enhancement kinetics (P = 0.0003), tumor ADCmean (P

The article Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions), written by Christoph J Rageth, Elizabeth AM OFlynn, Katja Pinker, Rahel A Kubik-Huch, Alexander Mundinger, Thomas Decker, Christoph Tausch, Florian Dammann, Pascal A. Baltzer, Eva Maria Fallenberg, Maria P Foschini, Sophie Dellas, Michael Knauer, Caroline Malhaire, Martin Sonnenschein, Andreas Boos, Elisabeth Morris, Zsuzsanna Varga, was originally published electronically on the publishers internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on November 30, 2018 without open access.

PURPOSE: The second International Consensus Conference on B3 lesions was held in Zurich, Switzerland, in March 2018, organized by the International Breast Ultrasound School to re-evaluate the consensus recommendations. METHODS: This study (1) evaluated how management recommendations of the first Zurich Consensus Conference of 2016 on B3 lesions had influenced daily practice and (2) reviewed current literature towards recommendations to biopsy. RESULTS: In 2018, the consensus recommendations for management of B3 lesions remained almost unchanged: For flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), papillary lesions (PL) and radial scars (RS) diagnosed on core-needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), excision by VAB in preference to open surgery, and for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and phyllodes tumors (PT) diagnosed at VAB or CNB, first-line open surgical excision (OE) with follow-up surveillance imaging for 5 years. Analyzing the Database of the Swiss Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsies (MIBB) with more than 30,000 procedures recorded, there was a significant increase in recommending more frequent surveillance of LN [65% in 2018 vs. 51% in 2016 (p = 0.004)], FEA (72% in 2018 vs. 62% in 2016 (p = 0.005)), and PL [(76% in 2018 vs. 70% in 2016 (p = 0.04)] diagnosed on VAB. A trend to more frequent surveillance was also noted also for RS [77% in 2018 vs. 67% in 2016 (p = 0.07)]. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive management of B3 lesions (except ADH and PT) with VAB continues to be appropriate as an alternative to first-line OE in most cases, but with more frequent surveillance, especially for LN.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast density, or the amount of fibroglandular tissue in the breast, has become a recognized and independent marker for breast cancer risk. Public awareness of breast density as a possible risk factor for breast cancer has resulted in legislation for risk stratification purposes in many US states. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available imaging modalities for qualitative and quantitative breast density assessment and the current evidence on breast density and breast cancer risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, breast density assessment is mainly performed with mammography and to some extent with magnetic resonance imaging. Data indicate that computerized, quantitative techniques in comparison with subjective visual estimations are characterized by higher reproducibility and robustness. SUMMARY: Breast density reduces the sensitivity of mammography due to a masking effect and is also a recognized independent risk factor for breast cancer. Standardized breast density assessment using automated volumetric quantitative methods has the potential to be used for risk prediction and stratification and in determining the best screening plan for each woman.