Search

Purpose: Evaluating the efficacy of machine learning for preoperative differentiation between invasive and non-invasive breast cancer through integrated automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) radiomics and virtual touch quantification (VTQ) techniques. Methods: We conducted an extensive retrospective analysis on a cohort of 171 breast cancer patients, differentiating them into 124 invasive and 47 non-invasive cases. The data was meticulously divided into a training set (n = 119) and a validation set (n = 52), maintaining a 70:30 ratio. Several machine learning models were developed and tested, including Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). Their performance was evaluated using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC), and visualized the feature contributions of the optimal model using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Results: Through both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, we identified key independent predictors in differentiating between invasive and non-invasive breast cancer types: coronal plane features, Shear Wave Velocity (SWV), and Radscore. The AUC scores for our machine learning models varied, ranging from 0.625 to 0.880, with the DT model demonstrating a notably high AUC of 0.874 in the validation set. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that machine learning models, which integrate ABVS radiomics and VTQ, are significantly effective in preoperatively distinguishing between invasive and non-invasive breast cancer. Particularly, the DT model stood out in the validation set, establishing it as the primary model in our study. This highlights its potential utility in enhancing clinical decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer is a complex disease that includes entities with different characteristics, behaviors, and responses to treatment. Breast cancers are categorized into subgroups based on histological type and grade, and these subgroups affect clinical presentation and oncological outcomes. The subgroup of "special types" encompasses all those breast cancers with insufficient features to belong to the subgroup "invasive ductal carcinoma not otherwise specified". These cancers account for around 25% of all cases, some of them having a relatively good prognosis despite high histological grade. The purpose of this paper is to review and illustrate the radiological appearance of each special type, highlighting insights and pitfalls to guide breast radiologists in their routine work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This review analyzes the possibility of breast ultrasound as a primary screening modality for breast cancer, particularly in resource-limited areas. It examines 52 recent papers and underlines ultrasound's advantages, including radiation-free imaging and suitability for younger populations. Reduced specificity and operator reliance are two major challenges. Despite advances such as automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS), this review emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive screening approach, with a focus on international collaboration to enhance global outcomes. Breast cancer, affecting both genders, but mostly females, exhibits shifting demographic patterns, with an increasing incidence in younger age groups. Early identification through mammography, clinical examinations, and breast self-exams enhances treatment efficacy, but challenges persist in low- and medium-income countries due to limited imaging resources. This review assesses the feasibility of employing breast ultrasound as the primary breast cancer screening method, particularly in resource-constrained regions. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study examines 52 publications from the last five years. Breast ultrasound, distinct from mammography, offers advantages like radiation-free imaging, suitability for repeated screenings, and preference for younger populations. Real-time imaging and dense breast tissue evaluation enhance sensitivity, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. However, limitations include reduced specificity, operator dependence, and challenges in detecting microcalcifications. Automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) addresses some issues but faces constraints like potential inaccuracies and limited microcalcification detection. The analysis underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to breast cancer screening, emphasizing international collaboration and addressing limitations, especially in resource-constrained settings. Despite advancements, notably with ABUS, the primary goal is to contribute insights for optimizing breast cancer screening globally, improving outcomes, and mitigating the impact of this debilitating disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: The objective of this review was to examine the current literature and clinical relevance of radial scars. We discuss the diagnostic workup of radial scars, factors impacting upgrade rates to malignancy, and current issues in management. Recent Findings: Several guidelines exist with varying recommendations on the management of radial scars. Early studies advocated for the excision of all radial scars to definitively exclude cancer. However, there is growing evidence that some lesions may be observed with serial imaging. Summary: Numerous factors contribute to the risk of upgrading radial scars to malignancy. The presence of atypia, level of enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging, and the method of tissue biopsy can impact the risk of upgrade. Radial scars without atypia and non-enhancement on MRI that are sampled with a vacuum-assisted device have low risks of upgrade and may be candidates for non-operative management with close surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Non-calcified mammographic findings, which are suspicious for breast cancer, often undergo ultrasound for further evaluation and to facilitate percutaneous tissue sampling. Most of these findings have a correlation with ultrasound examinations, but some do not. The significance of those without an ultrasound correlation has not been evaluated with modern mammographic techniques. Specifically, mammographic architectural distortion is of particular interest given that it is more commonly identified with digital breast tomosynthesis, a modern quasi-three-dimensional mammographic technique. This article serves to provide management guidance for those situations by retrospectively evaluating a very large cohort of these findings. Suspicious non-calcified mammographic findings have not been evaluated with modern mammographic technique, and the purpose of this work is to compare the likelihood of malignancy for those findings. To do this, 5018 consecutive mammographically guided biopsies performed during 2016–2019 at a large metropolitan, community-based hospital system were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 4396 were excluded for targeting calcifications, insufficient follow-up, or missing data. Thirty-seven of 126 masses (29.4%) were malignant, 44 of 194 asymmetries (22.7%) were malignant, and 77 of 302 architectural distortions (AD, 25.5%) were malignant. The combined likelihood of malignancy was 25.4%. Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of malignancy for each imaging finding type (all p ≤ 0.006), and a possible ultrasound correlation was associated with a higher likelihood of malignancy when all findings were considered together (p = 0.012). Two-view asymmetries were more frequently malignant than one-view asymmetries (p = 0.03). There were two false-negative biopsies (98.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity). In conclusion, the 25.4% likelihood of malignancy confirms the recommendation for biopsy of suspicious, ultrasound-occult, mammographic findings. Mammographically guided biopsies were highly sensitive and specific in this study. Older patient age and a possible ultrasound correlation should raise concern given the increased likelihood of malignancy in those scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]