Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 245149.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 244563.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: Problem solving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to exclude malignancy in women with equivocal findings on conventional imaging. However, recommendations on its use for women recalled after screening are lacking. This study evaluates the impact of problem solving MRI on diagnostic workup among women recalled from the Dutch screening program, as well as time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use. METHODS: Women who were recalled at screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands (2008-2017) were included. Two-year follow-up data were collected. Diagnostic-workup and accuracy of problem solving MRI were evaluated and time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use were examined. RESULTS: In the study period 16,175 women were recalled, of whom 906 underwent problem solving MRI. Almost half of the women (45.4%) who underwent problem solving MRI were referred back to the screening program without further workup. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of problem solving MRI were 98.2%, 70.0%, 31.1%, and 99.6%, respectively. The percentage of recalled women receiving problem solving MRI fluctuated over time (4.7%-7.2%) and significantly varied among hospitals (2.2%-7.0%). CONCLUSION: The use of problem solving MRI may exclude malignancy in recalled women. The use of problem solving MRI varied over time and among hospitals, which indicates the need for guidelines on problem solving MRI.

Contains fulltext : 231630.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 238687.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the association between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical margin involvement, as well as to determine the factors associated with positive resection margins in screen-detected breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Breast cancer patients eligible for BCS and diagnosed after biennial screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands (2008-2017) were retrospectively included. Missing values were imputed and multivariable regression analyses were performed to analyze whether preoperative MRI was related to margin involvement after BCS, as well as to examine what factors were associated with positive resection margins, defined as more than focally (>4 mm) involved. RESULTS: Overall, 2483 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled, of whom 123 (5.0%) had more than focally involved resection margins. In multivariable regression analyses, preoperative MRI was associated with a reduced risk of positive resection margins after BCS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96). Lobular histology (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.68-4.87), large tumor size (per millimeter increase, adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), high (>75%) mammographic density (adjusted OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.12), and the presence of microcalcifications (adjusted OR 4.45, 95% CI 2.69-7.37) and architectural distortions (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01-3.40) were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI was associated with lower risk of positive resection margins in patients with invasive breast cancer eligible for BCS using multivariable analysis. Furthermore, specific mammographic characteristics and tumor characteristics were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS.

Contains fulltext : 225420.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Delay in detection of breast cancer may worsen tumour characteristics, with progression of tumour size and a higher risk of metastatic lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to investigate delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality at screening. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed in two cohorts of women enrolled in a mammography screening programme in the Netherlands. All women aged 50-75 who underwent biennial screening mammography either between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2006 (cohort 1) or between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 (cohort 2) were included. RESULTS: The cohorts showed no difference in proportions of women with delayed breast cancer diagnosis of at least 2 years (2.2% versus 2.8%, P = 0.29). Most delays were caused by incorrect BI-RADS classifications after recall (74.2%). An increase in mean tumour size was seen when comparing sizes at initial false-negative recall and at diagnosis of breast cancer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women with a long delay in breast cancer confirmation following repeated recall at screening mammography has not decreased during 20 years of screening. These delays lead to larger tumour size at detection and may negatively influence prognosis.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Unlike sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the primary setting, the repeat SLNB (rSLNB) in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is challenging, because it is difficult to visualize and/or harvest a sentinel lymph node in every patient. Regional treatments options and safety in terms of regional disease control after such an unsuccessful rSLNB remain unclear. This study assesses factors associated with the performance of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after unsuccessful rSLNB and evaluates the occurrence of regional recurrences. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. In 239 patients, the rSLNB was unsuccessful, of whom 60 patients underwent ipsilateral ALND. RESULTS: A shorter time interval between primary treatment and IBTR, and a primary negative SLNB were significantly associated with a higher probability to be treated with ALND after unsuccessful rSLNB (P < 0.001). The 5-year regional-recurrence rate was 0.0% in the ALND group compared with 3.7% in the group treated without ALND (P = 0.113). Of the 179 patients treated without ALND, after a median follow-up of 5.1 years (range 0.3-13.2), 7 (3.9%) developed a regional recurrence as first event after unsuccessful rSLNB. None of the seven recurrences occurred in the ipsilateral axilla. Univariable analysis showed no factors associated with regional recurrence as first event after unsuccessful rSLNB (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the risk of regional recurrence in patients with an IBTR and an unsuccessful rSLNB is negligible, irrespective of the use of ALND. This suggests that there is no need for additional treatment of the axilla after an unsuccessful rSLNB.