Search

Purpose of Review: Surveillance imaging improves survival in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC); however, imaging strategies vary in this population. This review evaluated current literature and guidelines regarding imaging modalities and approaches in women with PHBC. Recent Findings: The consensus among major breast societies is that annual surveillance mammography is recommended in all women with PHBC. Noting limitations of mammography, supplemental imaging modalities have emerged and are increasingly utilized by practices, providing the benefit of incremental cancer detection at the expense of potential additional false-positive workups. Summary: Annual surveillance mammography is associated with improved outcomes among women with PHBC. Accurate risk assessment and careful patient selection are needed when considering supplemental imaging, in order to maximize benefits, limit false-positive workups, and appropriately utilize limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84‐gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess the "real-world" impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to detect breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening exams following 12 months of utilization in a subspecialized academic breast center. Methods: Following IRB approval, mammography audit reports, as specified in the BI-RADS atlas, were retrospectively generated for five radiologists reading at three locations during a 12-month time frame. One location had the AI tool (iCAD ProFound AI v2.0), and the other two locations did not. The co-primary endpoints were cancer detection rate (CDR) and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer among screenings with abnormal interpretations (PPV1) and for biopsies performed (PPV3). Odds ratios (OR) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) summarized the impact of AI across radiologists using generalized estimating equations. Results: Nonsignificant differences were observed in CDR, AIR, and PPVs. The CDR was 7.3 with AI and 5.9 without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9--1.7). The AIR was 11.7% with AI and 11.8% without AI (OR 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8--1.3). The PPV1 was 6.2% with AI and 5.0% without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.97--1.7). The PPV3 was 33.3% with AI and 32.0% without AI (OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8--1.5). Conclusion: Although we are unable to show statistically significant changes in CDR and AIR outcomes in the two groups, the results are consistent with prior reader studies. There is a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in CDR with AI, without significant increases in AIR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying the prevalence and management of patients at high-risk for breast cancer can improve resource utilization and provide individualized screening strategies.Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of high-risk patients in our institution who presented for screening mammography and to understand how they utilized downstream resources offered to them.Materials and Methods: This single institution retrospective study utilized the Tyrer-Cuzick risk assessment model to provide lifetime risk of breast cancer of patients presenting for screening mammography over a one-year period. Their subsequent management and resource utilization were collated.Results: High-risk patients comprised 7.7% (701/9061) of our screening population. Of those high-risk women offered a Breast Center (BC) consultation, 75.2% (276/367) participated in the consultation, with 51.1% (141/276) of those patients completing MRI for supplemental screening. Risk reducing medication was adopted by 7.6% (6/79) of those offered. Of patients offered a genetics consultation, 66.3% (53/80) participated in the consultation, and 50.0% (40/80) completed genetic testing.Conclusions: Identifying and understanding high-risk patient cohorts, whether locally or in a population-based context, is important for individualized patient care and practice efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. Methods: Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. Results: From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34-86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct postconsultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. Conclusion: A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a supplemental screening modality consistently demonstrating incremental cancer detection over mammography alone; however, its lengthy duration may limit widespread utilization. The study purpose was to assess feasibility of an abbreviated MBI protocol, providing readers with mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections only and assessing performance in lesion detection and localization. Methods: Retrospective IRB-exempt blinded reader study administered to 5 fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologists. Independent reads performed for 124 screening MBI cases, half abnormal and half negative/normal. Readers determined whether an abnormality was present, side of abnormality, and location of abnormality (medial/lateral). Abnormal cases had confirmatory biopsy or surgical pathology; normal cases had imaging follow-up ensuring true negative results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess performance. A false negative result indicated that a reader failed to detect abnormal uptake; a false positive result indicated a reader incorrectly called an abnormality for a negative case. Tests for association included chi-square, Fisher-exact, and analysis of variance. Results: Mean reader performance for detecting abnormal uptake: sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 98.7%, PPV 98.8%, and NPV 96.9%. Accuracy in localizing lesions to the medial or lateral breast was 100%. There were no associations in reader performance with reader experience, reader technique, lesion morphology, or lesion pathology. Median lesion size was 1.0 cm (range: 0.4-8.0 cm). All readers correctly identified 97.7% (42/43) of lesions with malignant or elevated risk pathology. Conclusion: An abbreviated MBI protocol (MLO images only) maintained high accuracy in lesion detection and localization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Image-guided breast biopsies are safe, efficient, and reliable. However, patients are often anxious about these procedures, particularly those who have never undergone a prior biopsy. Methods: This prospective IRB-approved study surveyed 163 patients undergoing their first breast biopsy. Participants provided informed consent and completed a short written survey prior to and immediately after their procedure. Level of anxiety as well as anticipated and actual levels of pain prior to and following the procedure were assessed using a 0-10-point Likert scale. Correlation, bivariate, and regression analyses were performed. Results: Regarding the biopsy experience, 133/163 (81.6%) of patients reported it as better than expected. Anxiety decreased significantly from a prebiopsy mean score of 5.52 to a postbiopsy mean score of 2.25 (P < 0.001). Average and greatest pain experienced during the procedure had mean scores of 2.03 and 2.77, respectively, both significantly lower compared to preprocedural expectation (mean 4.53) (P < 0.001). Lower pain scores were reported in US-guided procedures compared to stereotactic- and MRI-guided biopsies (P < 0.001). No significant differences in pain scores were seen in those undergoing single versus multiple biopsies, or when benign, elevated-risk, or malignant lesions were sampled. Positive correlations were seen with prebiopsy anxiety levels and procedural pain as well as with anticipated pain and actual procedural pain. Conclusion: Image-guided biopsies are often better tolerated by patients than anticipated. We stress the benefit of conveying this information to patients prior to biopsy, as decreased anxiety correlates with lower levels of pain experienced during the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Parenchymal breast cysts are considered to be rare in men and are sparsely described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to review our institution's experience with male breast cysts in an effort to improve overall understanding and management of this rare entity. Methods: An institutional review board--exempt retrospective study was performed. Radiology reports for males who underwent mammogram and/or breast ultrasound at any of our institution's primary or satellite locations from January 1995 to January 2020 were screened to find males with breast cysts. If cysts were reported and images were available, case review was performed to confirm parenchymal breast cyst(s) and patient characteristics were collated. Results: Of 5425 male cases presenting for breast imaging, 19 (0.4%) cases of male breast cysts were confirmed, with a mean patient age of 41.6 years (range: 2-81 years). The most common indication leading to cyst discovery was a palpable lump, corresponding to the site of the cyst in 5 (26.3%) patients and near the site where cyst(s) were ultimately discovered in 7 (36.8%) patients. There were 8 (42.1%) instances of cysts without concurrent gynecomastia. Three (15.8%) men underwent needle sampling. There were no cases of atypia or malignancy on needle biopsy or on subsequent clinical follow-up, with median clinical follow-up of 70.3 months (range: 3.3-259.4 months). Conclusion: Male breast parenchymal cysts are rare, but their prevalence is likely underestimated. If detected incidentally or upon targeted evaluation, biopsy may be averted if classic benign cyst features are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 8-56% of patients with a core needle biopsy (CNB) diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will be upstaged to invasive disease at the time of excision. Patients with invasive disease are recommended to undergo axillary nodal staging, most often requiring a second operation. We developed and validated a nomogram to preoperatively predict percentage of risk for upstaging to invasive cancer. Methods: We reviewed 834 cases of DCIS on CNB between January 2004 and October 2014. Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate CNB and imaging factors to develop a nomogram to predict the risk of upstaging from DCIS to invasive cancer. This nomogram was validated with an external dataset of 579 similar patients between November 1998 and September 2016. An area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed to evaluate nomogram discrimination. Results: The rate of upstaging to invasive disease was 118/834 (14.1%). On multivariable analysis, grade on CNB and imaging factors, including mass lesion, multicentric disease, and largest linear dimension, were associated with upstage to invasive disease, and was used to develop a nomogram (c-statistic 0.71). In the external validation dataset, 62/579 (10.7%) patients were upstaged to invasive disease. Our nomogram was validated in this dataset with a c-statistic of 0.71. Conclusion: For patients with a CNB diagnosis of DCIS, our validated nomogram using DCIS grade on biopsy, and imaging factors of mass lesion, multicentric disease, and largest linear dimension, may be used for preoperative assessment of risk of upstaging to invasive disease, allowing patient counseling regarding axillary staging at the time of definitive surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dense breast parenchyma obscures breast lesions on mammography and is an independent risk factor for development of breast cancer. Many states have approved laws requiring patient notification of dense breast tissue. Supplemental screening modalities are available however their utilization and efficacy are quite variable. Our aim was to survey primary care providers in an effort to gauge awareness of and familiarity with dense breast legislation and supplemental screening. A multisite survey was administered via e-mail to all Mayo Clinic staff physicians, residents and fellows, as well as nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the departments of Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. 362 responses were collected. 68% of respondents were aware of breast density notification laws; 32% had no knowledge of these laws. Implementation of supplemental imaging was variable. Of eligible respondents, 26% offered a supplemental examination to every patient with dense breasts, 47% offered it only to certain patients based upon unique patient or risk factors, 15% did not offer supplemental examinations, and 11% offered an examination based on other criteria. When assessing comfort level in answering questions regarding breast density, 32% were "slightly comfortable" and 18% were "not comfortable." When estimating the percentage of patients with adequate insurance coverage for supplemental imaging, 62% were unsure while 11% did not inquire. Despite public and legislative support, there is a lack of familiarity and considerable practice variation among primary care providers when managing patients with mammographically dense breast tissue. Further research and advances in patient and provider education on this topic are needed to improve management. Radiologists can assist by educating referring providers and consolidating imaging strategies to help circumvent systems-based flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examine MRI phenotypes of breast cancers arising in patients with various pathogenic variants, to assess for imaging trends and associations. Multisite retrospective review evaluated 410 patients from 2001 to 2020 with breast cancer and a predisposing pathogenic variant who underwent breast MRI at time of cancer diagnosis. Dominant malignant lesion features were reported, including lesion type (mass versus non-mass enhancement), size, shape, margin, internal enhancement pattern, plus other features. Kruskal-Wallis test, Fisher's exact test, and pairwise comparisons performed comparing imaging manifestations for the most frequent genetic results. BRCA1 (29.5 %) and BRCA2 (25.9 %) variants were most common, followed by CHEK2 (16.6 %), ATM (8.0 %), and PALB2 (6.3 %), with significant associated differences in race/ethnicity (p = 0.040), age at cancer diagnosis (p = 0.005), tumor shapes (p = 0.001), margins (p < 0.001), grade (p < 0.001), internal enhancement pattern (rim enhancement) (p < 0.001), kinetics (washout) (p < 0.001), and presence of necrosis (p < 0.001). CHEK2 and ATM tumors were often lower grade with spiculated margins (CHEK2 : 47.1 %, ATM : 45.5 %), rarely exhibiting washout or tumor necrosis (p < 0.001), and were mostly comprised of luminal molecular subtypes (CHEK2 : 88.2 %, ATM : 90.9 %). BRCA1 tumors had the highest proportions with round shape (31.4 %), circumscribed margins (24.0 %), rim enhancement (24.0 %), washout (58.7 %), and necrosis (19.8 %), with 47.9 % comprised of triple negative subtype. Bilateral mastectomy was performed in higher proportions of patients with BRCA1 (84.3 %) and BRCA2 (75.5 %) variants compared to others. Genetic and molecular profiles of breast cancers demonstrate reproducible MRI phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior studies suggest that obstructive sleep apnea may be associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease, a strong risk factor for Barrett's esophagus. The goals of this pilot case-control study were to determine whether Barrett's esophagus patients have an increased likelihood of obstructive sleep apnea and to determine whether nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux symptoms affect the relationship between Barrett's esophagus and obstructive sleep apnea risk. Methods: Patients with Barrett's esophagus completed the Berlin Questionnaire, a validated survey instrument identifying subjects at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. Two outpatient control groups were recruited: 1) EGD Group, subjects matched to Barrett's esophagus cases by age, race, and gender with esophagogastroduodenoscopy negative for Barrett's esophagus; and 2) Colonoscopy Group, patients getting colonoscopy. Rates of scoring at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea were compared. Respondents were also questioned regarding severity of their typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms and presence of nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Results: The study included 287 patients (54 Barrett's esophagus, 62 EGD, and 171 colonoscopy subjects). Barrett's esophagus patients were slightly older than colonoscopy patients and more obese. 56% (n = 30) of Barrett's esophagus subjects scored at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea, compared with 42% (n = 26) of EGD subjects (OR 1.73, 95% CI [0.83, 3.62]) and 37% (n = 64) of colonoscopy patients (OR 2.08, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]). The association between Barrett's esophagus and scoring at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea compared with colonoscopy patients disappeared after adjusting for age. Barrett's esophagus patients reported more severe typical heartburn and regurgitation symptoms than either control group. Among all subjects, patients with nocturnal reflux symptoms were more likely to score at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea than patients without nocturnal reflux. Conclusions: In this pilot study, a high proportion of Barrett' esophagus subjects scored at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. Having Barrett's esophagus was associated with more severe gastroesophageal reflux symptoms, and nocturnal reflux symptoms were associated with scoring at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. The need for obstructive sleep apnea screening in Barrett's esophagus patients with nocturnal gastroesophageal reflux symptoms should be further evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]