Search

01 september 2023, Contains fulltext : 296074.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. METHODS: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers >/= 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: * In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. * The current patient selection to preoperative breast MR

Contains fulltext : 225795.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Despite its high diagnostic performance, the use of breast MRI in the preoperative setting is controversial. It has the potential for personalized surgical management in breast cancer patients, but two of three randomized controlled trials did not show results in favor of its introduction for assessing the disease extent before surgery. Meta-analyses showed a higher mastectomy rate in women undergoing preoperative MRI compared to those who do not. Nevertheless, preoperative breast MRI is increasingly used and a survey from the American Society of Breast Surgeons showed that 41% of respondents ask for it in daily practice. In this context, a large-scale observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA study) was proposed under the guidance of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). The aims were (1) to prospectively and systematically collect data on consecutive women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer, not candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, who are offered or not offered breast MRI before surgery according to local practice; (2) to compare these two groups in terms of surgical and clinical endpoints, adjusting for covariates. The underlying hypotheses are that MRI does not cause additional mastectomies compared to conventional imaging, while reducing the reoperation rate in all or in subgroups of patients. Ninety-six centers applied to a web-based call; 36 were initially selected based on volume and quality standards; 27 were active for enrollment. On November 2018, the target of 7000 enrolled patients was reached. The MIPA study is presently at the analytic phase. Key Points • Breast MRI has a high diagnostic performance but its utility in the preoperative setting is controversial. • A large-scale observational multicenter prospective study was launched to compare women receiving with those not receiving preoperative MRI. • Twenty-seven centers enrolled more than 7000 patients. The study is presently at the ana

To achieve multicentre external validation of the Herder and Bayesian Inference Malignancy Calculator (BIMC) models.Two hundred and fifty-nine solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) collected from four major hospitals which underwent 18-FDG-PET characterization were included in this multicentre retrospective study. The Herder model was tested on all available lesions (group A). A subgroup of 180 SPNs (group B) was used to provide unbiased comparison between the Herder and BIMC models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed to assess diagnostic accuracy. Decision analysis was performed by adopting the risk threshold stated in British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines.Unbiased comparison performed In Group B showed a ROC AUC for the Herder model of 0.807 (95 % CI 0.742-0.862) and for the BIMC model of 0.822 (95 % CI 0.758-0.875).Both the Herder and the BIMC models were proven to accurately predict the risk of malignancy when tested on a large multicentre external case series. The BIMC model seems advantageous on the basis of a more favourable decision analysis.aEuro cent The Herder model showed a ROC AUC of 0.807 on 180 SPNs.aEuro cent The BIMC model showed a ROC AUC of 0.822 on 180 SPNs.aEuro cent Decision analysis is more favourable to the BIMC model.

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7aEuro degrees and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Objectives: To provide multicentre external validation of the Bayesian Inference Malignancy Calculator (BIMC) model by assessing diagnostic accuracy in a cohort of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) collected in a clinic-based setting. To assess model impact on SPN decision analysis and to compare findings with those obtained via the Mayo Clinic model. Methods: Clinical and imaging data were retrospectively collected from 200 patients from three centres. Accuracy was assessed by means of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUCs). Decision analysis was performed by adopting both the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) risk thresholds. Results: ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.880 (95 % CI, 0.832-0.928) for the BIMC model and of 0.604 (95 % CI, 0.524-0.683) for the Mayo Clinic model. Difference was 0.276 (95 % CI, 0.190-0.363, P < 0.0001). Decision analysis showed a slightly reduced number of false-negative and false-positive results when using ACCP risk thresholds. Conclusions: The BIMC model proved to be an accurate tool when characterising SPNs. In a clinical setting it can distinguish malignancies from benign nodules with minimal errors by adopting current ACCP or BTS risk thresholds and guiding lesion-tailored diagnostic and interventional procedures during the work-up. Key Points: • The BIMC model can accurately discriminate malignancies in the clinical setting • The BIMC model showed ROC AUC of 0.880 in this multicentre study • The BIMC model compares favourably with the Mayo Clinic model.

Women who underwent chest radiation therapy (CRT) during pediatric/young-adult age (typically, lymphoma survivors) have an increased breast cancer risk, in particular for high doses. The cumulative incidence from 40 to 45 years of age is 13-20 %, similar to that of BRCA mutation carriers for whom contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended. However, in women who underwent CRT, MRI sensitivity is lower (63-80 %) and that of mammography higher (67-70 %) than those observed in women with hereditary predisposition, due to a higher incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ with microcalcifications and low neoangiogenesis. A sensitivity close to 95 % can be obtained only using mammography as an adjunct to MRI. Considering the available evidence, women who underwent CRT before 30 receiving a cumulative dose ≥10 Gy should be invited after 25 (or, at least, 8 years after CRT) to attend the following program: 1. interview about individual risk profile and potential of breast imaging; 2. annual MRI using the same protocol recommended for women with hereditary predisposition; 3. annual bilateral two-view full-field digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with synthetic 2D reconstructions. Mammography and MRI can be performed at once or alternately every 6 months. In the case of MRI or contrast material contraindications, ultrasound will be performed instead of MRI. Reporting using BI-RADS is recommended. At the age for entering population screening, the individual risk profile will be discussed with the woman about opting for only mammography/DBT screening or for continuing the intensive protocol.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classifica