Search

Abstract Background Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer, but most DCIS lesions never will. Therefore, four clinical trials (COMET, LORIS, LORETTA, AND LORD) test whether active surveillance for women with low-risk Ductal carcinoma In Situ is safe (E. S. Hwang et al., BMJ Open, 9: e026797, 2019, A. Francis et al., Eur J Cancer. 51: 2296–2303, 2015, Chizuko Kanbayashi et al. The international collaboration of active surveillance trials for low-risk DCIS (LORIS, LORD, COMET, LORETTA), L. E. Elshof et al., Eur J Cancer, 51, 1497–510, 2015). Low-risk is defined as grade I or II DCIS. Because DCIS grade is a major eligibility criteria in these trials, it would be very helpful to assess DCIS grade on mammography, informed by grade assessed on DCIS histopathology in pre-surgery biopsies, since surgery will not be performed on a significant number of patients participating in these trials. Objective To assess the performance and clinical utility of a convolutional neural network (CNN) in discriminating high-risk (grade III) DCIS and/or Invasive Breast Cancer (IBC) from low-risk (grade I/II) DCIS based on mammographic features. We explored whether the CNN could be used as a decision support tool, from excluding high-risk patients for active surveillance. Methods In this single centre retrospective study, 464 patients diagnosed with DCIS based on pre-surgery biopsy between 2000 and 2014 were included. The collection of mammography images was partitioned on a patient-level into two subsets, one for training containing 80% of cases (371 cases, 681 images) and 20% (93 cases, 173 images) for testing. A deep learning model based on the U-Net CNN was trained and validated on 681 two-dimensional mammograms. Classification performance was assessed with the Area Under the Curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic and predictive values on the test set for predicting high risk DCIS-and high-risk DCIS and/ or IBC from low-risk DCIS. Results When classifying DCIS as high-risk, the deep learning network achieved a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 0.40, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 0.91 and an AUC of 0.72 on the test dataset. For distinguishing high-risk and/or upstaged DCIS (occult invasive breast cancer) from low-risk DCIS a PPV of 0.80, a NPV of 0.84 and an AUC of 0.76 were achieved. Conclusion For both scenarios (DCIS grade I/II vs. III, DCIS grade I/II vs. III and/or IBC) AUCs were high, 0.72 and 0.76, respectively, concluding that our convolutional neural network can discriminate low-grade from high-grade DCIS.

Abstract Background Calcifications on mammography can be indicative of breast cancer, but the prognostic value of their appearance remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) and clinicopathological factors. Methods A comprehensive literature search in Medline via Ovid, Embase.com, and Web of Science was conducted for articles published between 2000 and January 2022 that assessed the relationship between CMDs and clinicopathological factors, excluding case reports and review articles. The risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the QUIPS tool and GRADE. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the extracted data. This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results Among the 4715 articles reviewed, 29 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 17 different clinicopathological factors in relation to CMDs. Heterogeneity between studies was present and the overall risk of bias was high, primarily due to small, inadequately described study populations. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant associations between fine linear calcifications and high-grade DCIS [pooled odds ratio (pOR), 4.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.64–9.17], (comedo)necrosis (pOR, 3.46; 95% CI, 1.29–9.30), (micro)invasion (pOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03–2.27), and a negative association with estrogen receptor positivity (pOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12–0.89). Conclusions CMDs detected on mammography have prognostic value, but there is a high level of bias and variability between current studies. In order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary. Critical relevance statement Mammographic calcification morphology descriptors (CMDs) have prognostic value, but in order for CMDs to achieve clinical utility, standardization in reporting of CMDs is necessary. Systematic review registration CRD42022341599 Key points • Mammographic calcifications can be indicative of breast cancer. • The prognostic value of mammographic calcifications is still unclear. • Specific mammographic calcification morphologies are related to lesion aggressiveness. • Variability between studies necessitates standardization in calcification evaluation to achieve clinical utility. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Axillary lymphadenopathy is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, leading to increased imaging-detected asymptomatic and symptomatic unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. This has threatened to negatively impact the workflow of breast imaging services, leading to the release of ten recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in August 2021. Considering the rapidly changing scenario and data scarcity, these initial recommendations kept a highly conservative approach. As of 2023, according to newly acquired evidence, EUSOBI proposes the following updates, in order to reduce unnecessary examinations and avoid delaying necessary examinations. First, recommendation n. 3 has been revised to state that breast examinations should not be delayed or rescheduled because of COVID-19 vaccination, as evidence from the first pandemic waves highlights how delayed or missed screening tests have a negative effect on breast cancer morbidity and mortality, and that there is a near-zero risk of subsequent malignant findings in asymptomatic patients who have unilateral lymphadenopathy and no suspicious breast findings. Second, recommendation n. 7 has been revised to simplify follow-up strategies: in patients without breast cancer history and no imaging findings suspicious for cancer, symptomatic and asymptomatic imaging-detected unilateral lymphadenopathy on the same side of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 12 weeks) should be classified as a benign finding (BI-RADS 2) and no further work-up should be pursued. All other recommendations issued by EUSOBI in 2021 remain valid. Graphical abstract

Abstract Accurately determining the molecular subtypes of breast cancer is important for the prognosis of breast cancer patients and can guide treatment selection. In this study, we develop a deep learning-based model for predicting the molecular subtypes of breast cancer directly from the diagnostic mammography and ultrasound images. Multi-modal deep learning with intra- and inter-modality attention modules (MDL-IIA) is proposed to extract important relations between mammography and ultrasound for this task. MDL-IIA leads to the best diagnostic performance compared to other cohort models in predicting 4-category molecular subtypes with Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.837 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.803, 0.870). The MDL-IIA model can also discriminate between Luminal and Non-Luminal disease with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.929 (95% CI: 0.903, 0.951). These results significantly outperform clinicians’ predictions based on radiographic imaging. Beyond molecular-level test, based on gene-level ground truth, our method can bypass the inherent uncertainty from immunohistochemistry test. This work thus provides a noninvasive method to predict the molecular subtypes of breast cancer, potentially guiding treatment selection for breast cancer patients and providing decision support for clinicians.

Key points 1. Combining AI systems from different modalities may increase the overall performance. 2. Combined AI outperforms readers from single modalities for breast cancer detection. 3. Combined AI can be an alternative to radiologists in breast imaging reading.

Background: AI-driven clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) hold promise for multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). This study aimed to uncover the hurdles and aids in implementing CDSSs during breast cancer MDTMs. Methods: Twenty-four core team members from three hospitals engaged in semi-structured interviews, revealing a collective interest in experiencing CDSS workflows in clinical practice. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed anonymously. A standardized approach, ‘the framework method’, was used to create an analytical framework for data analysis, which was performed by two independent researchers. Results: Positive aspects included improved data visualization, time-saving features, automated trial matching, and enhanced documentation transparency. However, challenges emerged, primarily concerning data connectivity, guideline updates, the accuracy of AI-driven suggestions, and the risk of losing human involvement in decision making. Despite the complexities involved in CDSS development and integration, clinicians demonstrated enthusiasm to explore its potential benefits. Conclusions: Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of this challenge, insights into the barriers and facilitators identified in this study offer a potential roadmap for smoother future implementations. Understanding these factors could pave the way for more effective utilization of CDSSs in breast cancer MDTMs, enhancing patient care through informed decision making.

Abstract This review aims to identify factors causing heterogeneity in breast DWI–MRI and their impact on its value for identifying breast cancer patients with pathological complete response (pCR) on neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). A search was performed on PubMed until April 2020 for studies analyzing DWI for identifying breast cancer patients with pCR on NST. Technical and clinical study aspects were extracted and assessed for variability. Twenty studies representing 1455 patients/lesions were included. The studies differed with respect to study population, treatment type, DWI acquisition technique, post-processing (e.g., mono-exponential/intravoxel incoherent motion/stretched exponential modeling), and timing of follow-up studies. For the acquisition and generation of ADC-maps, various b-value combinations were used. Approaches for drawing regions of interest on longitudinal MRIs were highly variable. Biological variability due to various molecular subtypes was usually not taken into account. Moreover, definitions of pCR varied. The individual areas under the curve for the studies range from 0.50 to 0.92. However, overlapping ranges of mean/median ADC-values at pre- and/or during and/or post-NST were found for the pCR and non-pCR groups between studies. The technical, clinical, and epidemiological heterogeneity may be causal for the observed variability in the ability of DWI to predict pCR accurately. This makes implementation of DWI for pCR prediction and evaluation based on one absolute ADC threshold for all breast cancer types undesirable. Multidisciplinary consensus and appropriate clinical study design, taking biological and therapeutic variation into account, is required for obtaining standardized, reliable, and reproducible DWI measurements for pCR/non-pCR identification.

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.

Abstract Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a frequent mild side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) proposes ten recommendations to standardise its management and reduce unnecessary additional imaging and invasive procedures: (1) in patients with previous history of breast cancer, vaccination should be performed in the contralateral arm or in the thigh; (2) collect vaccination data for all patients referred to breast imaging services, including patients undergoing breast cancer staging and follow-up imaging examinations; (3) perform breast imaging examinations preferentially before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after the last vaccine dose; (4) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, apply standard imaging protocols regardless of vaccination status; (5) in any case of symptomatic or imaging-detected axillary lymphadenopathy before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after, examine with appropriate imaging the contralateral axilla and both breasts to exclude malignancy; (6) in case of axillary lymphadenopathy contralateral to the vaccination side, perform standard work-up; (7) in patients without breast cancer history and no suspicious breast imaging findings, lymphadenopathy only ipsilateral to the vaccination side within 12 weeks after vaccination can be considered benign or probably-benign, depending on clinical context; (8) in patients without breast cancer history, post-vaccination lymphadenopathy coupled with suspicious breast finding requires standard work-up, including biopsy when appropriate; (9) in patients with breast cancer history, interpret and manage post-vaccination lymphadenopathy considering the timeframe from vaccination and overall nodal metastatic risk; (10) complex or unclear cases should be managed by the multidisciplinary team.

Abstract We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as “high-risk” or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.

Although computers have had a role in interpretation of mammograms for at least two decades, their impact on performance has not lived up to expectations. However, in the last five years, the field of medical image analysis has undergone a revolution due to the introduction of deep learning convolutional neural networks – a form of artificial intelligence (AI). Because of their considerably higher performance compared to conventional computer aided detection methods, these AI algorithms have resulted in renewed interest in their potential for interpreting breast images in stand-alone mode. For this, first the actual capability of the algorithms, compared to breast radiologists, needs to be well understood. Although early studies have pointed to the comparable performance between AI systems and breast radiologists in interpreting mammograms, these comparisons have been performed in laboratory conditions with limited, enriched datasets. AI algorithms with performance comparable to breast radiologists could be used in a number of different ways, the most impactful being pre-selection, or triaging, of normal screening mammograms that would not need human interpretation. Initial studies evaluating this proposed use have shown very promising results, with the resulting accuracy of the complete screening process not being affected, but with a significant reduction in workload. There is a need to perform additional studies, especially prospective ones, with large screening data sets, to both gauge the actual stand-alone performance of these new algorithms, and the impact of the different implementation possibilities on screening programs.

Automatic breast and fibro-glandular tissue (FGT) segmentation in breast MRI allows for the efficient and accurate calculation of breast density. The U-Net architecture, either 2D or 3D, has already been shown to be effective at addressing the segmentation problem in breast MRI. However, the lack of publicly available datasets for this task has forced several authors to rely on internal datasets composed of either acquisitions without fat suppression (WOFS) or with fat suppression (FS), limiting the generalization of the approach. To solve this problem, we propose a data-centric approach, efficiently using the data available. By collecting a dataset of T1-weighted breast MRI acquisitions acquired with the use of the Dixon method, we train a network on both T1 WOFS and FS acquisitions while utilizing the same ground truth segmentation. Using the “plug-and-play” framework nnUNet, we achieve, on our internal test set, a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.96 and 0.91 for WOFS breast and FGT segmentation and 0.95 and 0.86 for FS breast and FGT segmentation, respectively. On an external, publicly available dataset, a panel of breast radiologists rated the quality of our automatic segmentation with an average of 3.73 on a four-point scale, with an average percentage agreement of 67.5%.

Abstract Purpose To outline the current status of and provide insight into possible future research on the breast lesion excision system (BLES) as a diagnostic and therapeutic device. Methods A systematic search of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published between January 2002 and April 2018. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the diagnostic or therapeutic accuracy or safety of BLES. Results Ultimately, 17 articles were included. The reported underestimation rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) ranged from 0 to 14.3% and from 0 to 22.2%, respectively. Complete excision rates for invasive ductal carcinoma and DCIS ranged from 5.3 to 76.3%. Bleeding was the most frequently reported complication (0–11.8%). Device-related complications may arise, with an empty basket being the most common (0.6–3.6%). Thermal damage of the specimen, caused by the use of a radiofrequency cutting wire, was reported in eight of the included studies. Most thermal artifacts were reported as superficial and small (0.1–1.9 mm). Conclusions The BLES, an automated, image-guided, single-pass biopsy system for breast lesions using radiofrequency is designed to excise and retrieve an intact tissue specimen. It is an efficient and safe breast biopsy method with acceptable complication rates, which may be used as an alternative to vacuum-assisted biopsies. The variable rate of complete excision raises questions about the possibility to use BLES as a therapeutic device for the excision of small lesions. Further research should focus on this aspect of BLES.

Abstract Background Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive imaging method for breast cancer detection and is therefore offered as a screening technique to women at increased risk of developing breast cancer. However, mammography is currently added from the age of 30 without proven benefits. The purpose of this study is to investigate the added cancer detection of mammography when breast MRI is available, focusing on the value in women with and without BRCA mutation, and in the age groups above and below 50 years. Methods This retrospective single-center study evaluated 6553 screening rounds in 2026 women at increased risk of breast cancer (1 January 2003 to 1 January 2014). Risk category (BRCA mutation versus others at increased risk of breast cancer), age at examination, recall, biopsy, and histopathological diagnosis were recorded. Cancer yield, false positive recall rate (FPR), and false positive biopsy rate (FPB) were calculated using generalized estimating equations for separate age categories (

Abstract This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

Abstract Background The main purpose was to investigate the correlation between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based response patterns halfway through neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy (NAC) and pathological tumor response in patients with breast cancer. Secondary purposes were to compare the predictive value of MRI-based response patterns measured halfway through NAC and after NAC and to measure interobserver variability. Methods All consecutive patients treated with NAC for primary invasive breast cancer from 2012 to 2015 and who underwent breast MRI before, halfway through (and after) NAC were included. All breast tumors were reassessed on MRI by two experienced breast radiologists and classified into six patterns: type 0 (complete radiologic response); type 1 (concentric shrinkage); type 2 (crumbling); type 3 (diffuse enhancement); type 4 (stable disease); type 5 (progressive disease). Percentages of tumors showing pathological complete response (pCR), > 50% tumor reduction and > 50% tumor diameter reduction per MRI-based response pattern were calculated. Correlation between MRI-based response patterns and pathological tumor reduction was studied with Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and interobserver agreement was tested with Cohen’s Kappa. Results Patients (n = 76; mean age 53, range 29–72 years) with 80 tumors (4 bilateral) were included. There was significant correlation between these MRI-based response patterns halfway through NAC and tumor reduction on pathology assessment (reader 1 r = 0.33; p = 0.003 and reader 2 r = 0.45; p 50% tumor reduction in 90%, 78% and 65% of cases, respectively. In 83% of tumors with type 0 halfway through NAC, pathology assessment showed pCR. There was no significant correlation between MRI-based response patterns after NAC and tumor reduction rates on pathology assessment (reader 1 r = − 0.17; p = 0.145 and reader 2 r = − 0.17; p = 0.146). In 41% of tumors with type 0 after NAC, pathology assessment showed pCR. Conclusion MRI-based response patterns halfway through NAC can predict pathologic response more accurately than MRI-based response patterns after NAC. Complete radiological response halfway NAC is associated with 83% pCR, while complete radiological response after NAC seems to be correct in only 41% of cases.

Abstract Background In mammography, breast compression is applied to reduce the thickness of the breast. While it is widely accepted that firm breast compression is needed to ensure acceptable image quality, guidelines remain vague about how much compression should be applied during mammogram acquisition. A quantitative parameter indicating the desirable amount of compression is not available. Consequently, little is known about the relationship between the amount of breast compression and breast cancer detectability. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of breast compression pressure in mammography on breast cancer screening outcomes. Methods We used digital image analysis methods to determine breast volume, percent dense volume, and pressure from 132,776 examinations of 57,179 women participating in the Dutch population-based biennial breast cancer screening program. Pressure was estimated by dividing the compression force by the area of the contact surface between breast and compression paddle. The data was subdivided into quintiles of pressure and the number of screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, false positives, and true negatives were determined for each group. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation between examinations of the same woman and for the effect of breast density and volume when estimating sensitivity, specificity, and other performance measures. Sensitivity was computed using interval cancers occurring between two screening rounds and using interval cancers within 12 months after screening. Pair-wise testing for significant differences was performed. Results Percent dense volume increased with increasing pressure, while breast volume decreased. Sensitivity in quintiles with increasing pressure was 82.0%, 77.1%, 79.8%, 71.1%, and 70.8%. Sensitivity based on interval cancers within 12 months was significantly lower in the highest pressure quintile compared to the third (84.3% vs 93.9%, p = 0.034). Specificity was lower in the lowest pressure quintile (98.0%) compared to the second, third, and fourth group (98.5%, p

Objective: The aim of our systematic review is to identify the effects of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) for lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Methods: Our systematic review, performed following PRISMA guidelines, included studies examining the impact of MDTMs on treatment decisions, patient and process outcomes. Electronic databases PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and GRADE scale. Results: 41 of 13,246 articles were selected, evaluating colorectal (21), lung (10), prostate (6) and breast (4) cancer. Results showed that management plans were changed in 1.6–58% of cases after MDTMs. Studies reported a significant impact of MDTMs on surgery type, and a reduction of overall performed surgery after MDTM. Results also suggest that CT and MRI imaging significantly increased after MDTM implementation. Survival rate increased significantly with MDTM discussions according to twelve studies, yet three studies did not show significant differences. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneous data, MDTMs showed a significant impact on management plans, process outcomes and patient outcomes. To further explore the impact of MDTMs on the quality of healthcare, high-quality research is needed.

Abstract Background In the light of the breast density legislation in the USA, it is important to know a woman’s breast cancer risk, but particularly her risk of a tumor that is not detected through mammographic screening (interval cancer). Therefore, we examined the associations of automatically measured volumetric breast density with screen-detected and interval cancer risk, separately. Methods Volumetric breast measures were assessed automatically using Volpara version 1.5.0 (Matakina, New Zealand) for the first available digital mammography (DM) examination of 52,814 women (age 50 − 75 years) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We excluded all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed as a result of the first digital screening examination. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (IQR 2.0–6.2) years, 523 women were diagnosed with breast cancer of which 299 were screen-detected and 224 were interval breast cancers. The associations between volumetric breast measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results Percentage dense volume was found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (hazard ratio (HR) 8.37 (95% CI 4.34–16.17) and HR 1.39 (95% CI 0.82–2.36), respectively, for Volpara density grade category (VDG) 4 compared to VDG1 (p for heterogeneity

BackgroundAlthough DBT is the standard initial imaging modality for women with focal breast symptoms, the importance of ultrasound has grown rapidly in the past decades. Therefore, the Breast UltraSound Trial (BUST) focused on assessing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the evaluation of breast symptoms by reversing the order of breast imaging; first performing ultrasound followed by DBT. This side-study of the BUST evaluates patients' perceptions of ultrasound and DBT in a reversed setting.MethodsAfter imaging, 1181/1276 BUST participants completed a survey consisting of open and closed questions regarding both exams (mean age 47.2, ±11.74). Additionally, a different subset of BUST participants (n = 29) participated in six focus group interviews 18-24 months after imaging to analyze their imaging experiences in depth.ResultsA total of 55.3% of women reported reluctance to undergoing DBT, primarily due of pain, while the vast majority also find bilateral DBT reassuring (87.3%). Thematic analysis identified themes related to 1) imaging reluctance (pain/burden, result, and breast harm) and 2) ultrasound and DBT perceptions. Regarding the latter, the theme comfort underscores DBT as burdensome and painful, while ultrasound is largely perceived as non-burdensome. Ultrasound is also particularly valued for its interactive nature, as highlighted in the theme interaction. Perceived effectiveness reflects women's interest in bilateral breast evaluation with DBT and the visibility of lesions, while they express more uncertainty about the reliability of ultrasound. Emotional impact portrays DBT as reassuring for many women, whereas opinions on the reassurance provided by ultrasound are more diverse. Additional themes include costs, protocols and privacy.ConclusionsUltrasound is highly tolerated, and particularly valued is the interaction with the radiologist. Nearly half of women express reluctance towards DBT; nevertheless, a large portion report feeling more confident after undergoing bilateral DBT, reassuring them of the absence of abnormalities. Understanding patients' perceptions of breast imaging examinations is of great value when optimizing diagnostic pathways.