Comparison of Mammography and Mammography with Supplemental Whole-Breast US Tomography for Cancer Detection in Patients with Dense Breasts.

BACKGROUND: Women with dense breasts benefit from supplemental cancer screening with US, but US has low specificity. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of breast US tomography (UST) combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multireader multicase study included women with dense breasts who underwent FFDM and UST at 10 centers between August 2017 and October 2019 as part of a prospective case collection registry. All patients in the registry with cancer were included; patients with benign biopsy or negative follow-up imaging findings were randomly selected for inclusion. Thirty-two Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists independently evaluated FFDM followed immediately by FFDM plus UST for suspicious findings and assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category. The superiority of FFDM plus UST versus FFDM alone for cancer detection (assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), BI-RADS 4 sensitivity, and BI-RADS 3 sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using the two-sided significance level of α = .05. Noninferiority of BI-RADS 4 specificity was evaluated at the one-sided significance level of α = .025 with a -10% margin. RESULTS: Among 140 women (mean age, 56 years ±10 [SD]; 36 with cancer, 104 without), FFDM plus UST achieved superior performance compared with FFDM alone (AUC, 0.60 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.69] vs 0.54 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.64]; P = .03). For FFDM plus UST versus FFDM alone, BI-RADS 4 mean sensitivity was superior (37% [428 of 1152] vs 30% [343 of 1152]; P = .03) and BI-RADS 4 mean specificity was noninferior (82% [2741 of 3328] vs 88% [2916 of 3328]; P = .004). For FFDM plus UST versus FFDM, no difference in BI-RADS 3 mean sensitivity was observed (40% [461 of 1152] vs 33% [385 of 1152]; P = .08), but BI-RADS 3 mean specificity was superior (75% [2491 of 3328] vs 69% [2299 of 3328]; P = .04). CONCLUSION: In women with dense breasts, FFDM plus UST improved cancer detection by radiologists versus FFDM alone. Clinical trial registration nos. NCT03257839 and NCT04260620 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann in this issue.

Toward AI-supported US Triage of Women with Palpable Breast Lumps in a Low-Resource Setting.

Background Most low- and middle-income countries lack access to organized breast cancer screening, and women with lumps may wait months for diagnostic assessment. Purpose To demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI) software applied to breast US images obtained with low-cost portable equipment and by minimally trained observers could accurately classify palpable breast masses for triage in a low-resource setting. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter study evaluated participants with at least one palpable mass who were enrolled in a hospital in Jalisco, Mexico, from December 2017 through May 2021. Orthogonal US images were obtained first with portable US with and without calipers of any findings at the site of lump and adjacent tissue. Then women were imaged with standard-of-care (SOC) US with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments by a radiologist. After exclusions, 758 masses in 300 women were analyzable by AI, with outputs of benign, probably benign, suspicious, and malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were determined. Results The mean patient age ± SD was 50.0 years ± 12.5 (range, 18-92 years) and mean largest lesion diameter was 13 mm ± 8 (range, 2-54 mm). Of 758 masses, 360 (47.5%) were palpable and 56 (7.4%) malignant, including six ductal carcinoma in situ. AI correctly identified 47 or 48 of 49 women (96%-98%) with cancer with either portable US or SOC US images, with AUCs of 0.91 and 0.95, respectively. One circumscribed invasive ductal carcinoma was classified as probably benign with SOC US, ipsilateral to a spiculated invasive ductal carcinoma. Of 251 women with benign masses, 168 (67%) imaged with SOC US were classified as benign or probably benign by AI, as were 96 of 251 masses (38%, P < .001) with portable US. AI performance with images obtained by a radiologist was significantly better than with images obtained by a minimally trained observer. Conclusion AI applied to portable US images of breast masses can accurately identify malignancies. Moderate specificity, which could triage 38%-67% of women with benign masses without tertiary referral, should further improve with AI and observer training with portable US. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Characterizing breast masses using an integrative framework of machine learning and CEUS-based radiomics.

AIMS: We evaluated the performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) based on radiomics analysis to distinguish benign from malignant breast masses. METHODS: 131 women with suspicious breast masses (BI-RADS 4a, 4b, or 4c) who underwent CEUS examinations (using intravenous injection of perflutren lipid microsphere or sulfur hexafluoride lipid-type A microspheres) prior to ultrasound-guided biopsies were retrospectively identified. Post biopsy pathology showed 115 benign and 16 malignant masses. From the cine clip of the CEUS exams obtained using the built-in GE scanner software, breast masses and adjacent normal tissue were then manually segmented using the ImageJ software. One frame representing each of the four phases: precontrast, early, peak, and delay enhancement were selected post segmentation from each CEUS clip. 112 radiomic metrics were extracted from each segmented tissue normalized breast mass using custom Matlab® code. Linear and nonlinear machine learning (ML) methods were used to build the prediction model to distinguish benign from malignant masses. tenfold cross-validation evaluated model performance. Area under the curve (AUC) was used to quantify prediction accuracy. RESULTS: Univariate analysis found 35 (38.5%) radiomic variables with p < 0.05 in differentiating between benign from malignant masses. No feature selection was performed. Predictive models based on AdaBoost reported an AUC = 0.72 95% CI (0.56, 0.89), followed by Random Forest with an AUC = 0.71 95% CI (0.56, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: CEUS based texture metrics can distinguish between benign and malignant breast masses, which can, in turn, lead to reduced unnecessary breast biopsies.

Multicenter Study of Whole Breast Stiffness Imaging by Ultrasound Tomography (SoftVue) for Characterization of Breast Tissues and Masses.

We evaluated whole breast stiffness imaging by SoftVue ultrasound tomography (UST), extracted from the bulk modulus, to volumetrically map differences in breast tissues and masses. A total 206 women with either palpable or mammographically/sonographically visible masses underwent UST scanning prior to biopsy as part of a prospective, HIPAA-compliant multicenter cohort study. The volumetric data sets comprised 298 masses (78 cancers, 105 fibroadenomas, 91 cysts and 24 other benign) in 239 breasts. All breast tissues were segmented into six categories, using sound speed to separate fat from fibroglandular tissues, and then subgrouped by stiffness into soft, intermediate and hard components. Ninety percent of women had mammographically dense breasts but only 11.2% of their total breast volume showed hard components while 69% of fibroglandular tissues were softer. All smaller masses (<1.5 cm) showed a greater percentage of hard components than their corresponding larger masses (p < 0.001). Cancers had significantly greater mean stiffness indices and lower mean homogeneity of stiffness than benign masses (p < 0.05). SoftVue stiffness imaging demonstrated small stiff masses, mainly due to cancers, amongst predominantly soft breast tissues. Quantitative stiffness mapping of the whole breast and underlying masses may have implications for screening of women with dense breasts, cancer risk evaluations, chemoprevention and treatment monitoring.

Addressing ethnic disparities in imaging utilization and clinical outcomes for COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Racial and ethnic disparities have exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic as the healthcare system is overwhelmed. While Hispanics are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, little is known about ethnic disparities in the hospital settings. This study investigates imaging utilization and clinical outcomes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic COVID-19 patients in the Emergency Department (ED) and during hospitalization. METHODS: Through retrospective chart review, we included 331 symptomatic COVID-19 patients (mean age 53.2 years) at a metropolitan healthcare system from March to June 2020. Poisson regression was used to compare diagnostic imaging utilization and clinical outcomes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, no statistically significant difference was found between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients for the number of weekly chest X-rays. Results were categorized into four clinical outcomes: ED management (0.16 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.8, p:0.79); requiring inpatient management (1.31 ± 0.11 vs. 1.46 ± 0.16, p:0.43); ICU admission without invasive ventilation (1.4 ± 0.17 vs. 1.35 ± 0.26, p:0.86); and ICU admission and ventilator support (3.29 ± 0.22 vs. 3.59 ± 0.37, p:0.38). There were no statistically significant relative differences in adjusted prevalence rate between ethnic groups for all clinical outcomes (p > 0.05). There was a statistically significant longer adjusted length of stay (days) in non-Hispanics for two subcohorts: inpatient management (8.16 ± 0.31 vs. 9.72 ± 0.5, p < 0.01) and ICU admission without invasive ventilation (10.39 ± 0.57 vs. 13.45 ± 1.13, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For Hispanic and non-Hispanic COVID-19 patients in the ED or hospitalized, there were no statistically significant differences in imaging utilization and clinical outcomes.

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

CONTEXT: Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS: A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION: The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Imaging characteristics of malignant lesions of the male breast.

Most men referred for breast imaging have palpable lumps, breast enlargement, or tenderness. Most of the evaluated lesions are benign. Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of total male breast lesions. Differentiation between benign and malignant masses is critical because it alleviates patient anxiety and allows unnecessary procedures to be avoided. Clinically suspicious lesions referred for imaging should first be evaluated with mammography. In patients with questionable findings at mammography and for lesions that are difficult to image with mammography, ultrasonography (US) is often useful for further characterization. A discrete mass at mammography or US is suspicious for malignancy. The relationship of the mass to the nipple should be carefully assessed; an eccentric location is highly suspicious for cancer. Secondary signs occur earlier in male patients because of smaller breast size. Such signs include nipple retraction, skin ulceration or thickening, increased breast trabeculation, and axillary adenopathy. US of the axillary region is helpful for staging. At pathologic analysis, cystic lesions commonly demonstrate malignant findings; therefore, all cysts and complex masses should be worked up as potentially malignant lesions. Benign conditions that may mimic male breast cancer include gynecomastia, lipoma, epidermal inclusion cyst, pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia, and intraductal papilloma.