Journal of Breast Imaging最新文献

Objective: This study aims to determine which qualitative and quantitative US features are independently associated with malignancy, including those derived from grayscale imaging morphology, shear wave elastography (SWE), and texture analysis.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study was approved by the institutional research ethics board. Consecutive breast US studies performed between January and December 2020 were included. Images were acquired using a Canon Aplio i800 US unit (Canon Medical Systems, Inc., CA) and i18LX5 wideband linear matrix transducer. Grayscale US features, SWE mean, and median elasticity were obtained. Single representative grayscale images were analyzed using dedicated software (LIFEx, version 6.30). First-order and gray-level co-occurrence matrix second-order texture features were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of malignancy (STATA v16.1).

Results: One hundred forty-seven cases with complete SWE data were selected for analysis (mean age 54.3, range 21-92). The following variables were found to be independently associated with malignancy: age (P <.001), family history (P = .013), irregular mass shape (P = .024), and stiffness on SWE (mean SWE ≥40 kPa; P <.001). Remaining variables (including texture features) were not found to be independently associated with malignancy (P >.05).

Conclusion: US texture analysis features were not associated with malignancy independent of other qualitative and quantitative US characteristics currently utilized in clinical practice. This suggests texture analysis may not be warranted when differentiating benign and malignant breast masses on US. In contrast, irregular mass shape on grayscale imaging and increased stiffness on SWE were found to be independent predictors of malignancy.

Breast radiologists encounter unusual lesions, which may not be well described in the literature. Previously based on histologic and molecular classifications, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors has become increasingly multidisciplinary. Familiarity with imaging features and basic pathology of infrequent breast lesions, as well as their current classification according to the WHO, may help the radiologist evaluate biopsy results for concordance and help direct the management of uncommon breast lesions. This review article provides a case-based review of imaging features and WHO histologic classification of rare breast tumors.

Objective: The use of artificial intelligence has potential in assisting many aspects of imaging interpretation. We undertook a prospective service evaluation from March to October 2022 of Mammography Intelligent Assessment (MIA) operating "silently" within our Breast Screening Service, with a view to establishing its performance in the local population and setting. This evaluation addressed the performance of standalone MIA vs conventional double human reading of mammograms.

Methods: MIA analyzed 8779 screening events over an 8-month period. The MIA outcome did not influence the decisions made on the clinical pathway. Cases were reviewed approximately 6 weeks after the screen reading decision when human reading and/or MIA indicated a recall.

Results: There were 146 women with positive concordance between human reading and MIA (human reader and MIA recalled) in whom 58 breast cancers were detected. There were 270 women with negative discordance (MIA no recall, human reader recall) for whom 19 breast cancers and 1 breast lymphoma were detected, with 1 cancer being an incidental finding at assessment. Six hundred and four women had positive discordance (MIA recall, human reader no recall) in whom 2 breast cancers were detected at review. The breast cancers demonstrated a wide spectrum of mammographic features, sites, sizes, and pathologies, with no statistically significant difference in features between the negative discordant and positive concordant cases.

Conclusion: Of 79 breast cancers identified by human readers, 18 were not identified by MIA, and these had no specific features or site to suggest a systematic error for MIA analysis of 2D screening mammograms.

Unlike many other subspecialties in radiology, breast radiologists practice in a patient-facing and interdisciplinary environment where team building, communication, and leadership skills are critical. Although breast radiologists can improve these skills over time, strong mentorship can accelerate this process, leading to a more successful and satisfying career. In addition to providing advice, insight, feedback, and encouragement to mentees, mentors help advance the field of breast radiology by contributing to the development of the next generation of leaders. During the mentorship process, mentors continue to hone their listening, problem-solving, and networking skills, which in turn creates a more supportive and nurturing work environment for the entire breast care team. This article reviews important mentorship skills that are essential for all breast radiologists. Although some of the principles apply to all mentoring relationships, ensuring that every breast radiologist has the skills to be both an effective mentor and mentee is key to the future of the profession.

Objective: Preoperative detection of axillary lymph node metastases (ALNMs) from breast cancer is suboptimal; however, recent work suggests radiomics may improve detection of ALNMs. This study aims to develop a 3D CT radiomics model to improve detection of ALNMs compared to conventional imaging features in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients referred to a specialty breast cancer center between 2015 and 2020 with US-guided biopsy-proven ALNMs and pretreatment chest CT. One hundred and twelve patients (224 lymph nodes) met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were assigned to discovery (n = 150 nodes) and testing (n = 74 nodes) cohorts. US-biopsy images were referenced in identifying ALNMs on CT, with contralateral nodes taken as negative controls. Positive and negative nodes were assessed for conventional features of lymphadenopathy as well as for 107 radiomic features extracted following 3D segmentation. Diagnostic performance of individual and combined radiomic features was evaluated.

Results: The strongest conventional imaging feature of ALNMs was short axis diameter ≥ 10 mm with a sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 95%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). Several radiomic features outperformed conventional features, most notably energy, a measure of voxel density magnitude. This feature demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 91%, 79%, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) for the discovery cohort. On the testing cohort, energy scored 92%, 81%, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) for sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, respectively. Combining radiomic features did not improve AUC compared to energy alone (P = .08).

Conclusion: 3D radiomic analysis represents a promising approach for noninvasive and accurate detection of ALNMs.

Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

With the growing utilization and expanding role of breast MRI, breast imaging radiologists may encounter an increasing number of incidental findings beyond the breast and axilla. Breast MRI encompasses a large area of anatomic coverage extending from the lower neck to the upper abdomen. While most incidental findings on breast MRI are benign, identifying metastatic disease can have a substantial impact on staging, prognosis, and treatment. Breast imaging radiologists should be familiar with common sites, MRI features, and breast cancer subtypes associated with metastatic disease to assist in differentiating malignant from benign findings. Furthermore, detection of malignancies of nonbreast origin as well as nonmalignant, but clinically relevant, incidental findings can significantly impact clinical management and patient outcomes. Breast imaging radiologists should consistently follow a comprehensive search pattern and employ techniques to improve the detection of these important incidental findings.

Although breast cancer death rates have persistently declined over the last 3 decades, older women have not experienced the same degree in mortality reduction as younger women despite having more favorable breast cancer phenotypes. This occurrence can be partially attributed to less robust mammographic screening in older women, the propensity to undertreat with advancing age, and the presence of underlying comorbidities. With recent revisions to breast cancer screening guidelines, there has been a constructive shift toward more agreement in the need for routine mammographic screening to commence at age 40. Unfortunately, this shift in agreement has not occurred for cutoff guidelines, wherein the recommendations are blurred and open to interpretation. With increasing life expectancy and an aging population who is healthier now than any other time in history, it is important to revisit mammographic screening with advanced age and understand why older women who should undergo screening are not being screened as well as offer suggestions on how to improve screening mammogram attendance in this population.