Determinants of mammography screening participation-a cross-sectional analysis of the German population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS).

PURPOSE: We investigated the association between social inequality and participation in a mammography screening program (MSP). Since the German government offers mammography screening free of charge, any effect of social inequality on participation should be due to educational status and not due to the financial burden. METHODS: The 'Gutenberg Health Study' is a cohort study in the Rhine-Main-region, Germany. A health check-up was performed, and questions about medical history, health behavior, including secondary prevention such as use of mammography, and social status are included. Two indicators of social inequality (equivalence income and educational status), an interaction term of these two, and different covariables were used to explore an association in different logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 4,681 women meeting the inclusion criteria were included. Only 6.2% never participated in the MSP. A higher income was associated with higher chances of ever participating in a mammography screening (odds ratios (OR): 1.67 per €1000; 95%CI:1.26-2.25, model 3, adjusted for age, education and an interaction term of income and education). Compared to women with a low educational status, the odds ratios for ever participating in the MSP was lower for the intermediate educational status group (OR = 0.64, 95%CI:0.45-0.91) and for the high educational status group (0.53, 95%CI:0.37-0.76). Results persisted also after controlling for relevant confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of financial barriers for participation in the MSP, socioeconomic inequalities still influence participation. It would be interesting to examine whether the educational effect is due to an informed decision.

Radiological imaging characteristics of intramammary hematological malignancies: results from a german multicenter study.

To assess radiological procedures and imaging characteristics in patients with intramammary hematological malignancies (IHM). Radiological imaging studies of histopathological proven IHM cases from ten German University affiliated breast imaging centers from 1997-2012 were retrospectively evaluated. Imaging modalities included ultrasound (US), mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Two radiologists blinded to the histopathological diagnoses independently assessed all imaging studies. Imaging studies of 101 patients with 204 intramammary lesions were included. Most patients were women (95%) with a median age of 64 years. IHM were classified as Non Hodgkin lymphoma (77.2%), plasmacytoma (11.9%), leukemia (9.9%), and Hodgkin lymphoma (1%). The mean lesion size was 15.8 ± 10.1 mm. Most IHM presented in mammography as lesions with comparable density to the surrounding tissue, and a round or irregular shape with indistinct margins. On US, most lesions were of irregular shape with complex echo pattern and indistinct margins. MRI shows lesions with irregular or spiculated margins and miscellaneous enhancement patterns. Using US or MRI, IHM were more frequently classified as BI-RADS 4 or 5 than using mammography (96.2% and 89.3% versus 75.3%). IHM can present with miscellaneous radiological patterns. Sensitivity for detection of IHM lesions was higher in US and MRI than in mammography.

Imaging findings of primary breast sarcoma: Results of a first multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To investigate imaging findings in patients with primary breast sarcoma (PBS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective search in the databases of 10 radiological departments in Germany from 2000 to 2011 was performed. Only histologically proven cases of PBS were included into the study. Mammography was available in 31 patients (33 lesions), ultrasound images in 24 patients (24 lesions), and for 10 patients (14 lesions) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast was performed. The breast findings were classified according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 5th edition categories. Collected data were evaluated by means of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-two female patients (mean age 62.0 years, range, 30-86 years) were included in the study. Clinically, all women had painless lumps. Irregular (53.3% [16/30]) or oval (30.0% [9/30]) mass with indistinct (73.3% [22/30]) or microlobulated (10% [3/30]) margins were common findings on mammograms. Ultrasound revealed typically an irregular (79.2% [19/24]), hypoechoic (62.5% [15/24]) mass, with indistinct margins (79.2% [19/24]), and posterior acoustic shadowing (79.2% [19/24]). MRI showed irregular masses (81.8% [9/11]) with irregular or spiculated margins, and a rapid initial signal increase with a delayed washout in kinetic analysis. CONCLUSION: Overall, PBS has no pathognomonic imaging features and can mimic those of invasive mammary carcinoma. Breast sarcoma should be taken into the differential diagnosis of breast findings described above.

Dynamic MR imaging of breast lesions: correlation with microvessel distribution pattern and histologic characteristics of prognosis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of dynamic enhancement parameters of benign and malignant breast lesions at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with microvessel distribution and histologic prognostic tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Surgical resection specimens of breast lesions (32 benign, 86 malignant) in 118 patients (age range, 28-86 years; mean, 58 years) who had undergone dynamic T1-weighted MR imaging of both breasts were included in the study. Different MR enhancement parameters and microvessel density (MVD) distribution were determined. In malignant lesions, TNM stage, tumor grade, proliferative activity, and hormone receptor expression were determined. Spearman correlation coefficients; Wilcoxon, Fisher exact, Kruskal Wallis, and chi(2) tests; and logistic regression analysis were used for evaluation. RESULTS: Malignant lesions exhibited a higher ratio of microvessels in tumor periphery versus tumor center than did benign lesions (P < .0005). High vessel ratios (P = .001) and low central vessel numbers (P = .007) were associated with high tumor grade. In malignant lesions, initial enhancement ratios of periphery to center of lesion correlated with the corresponding microvessel ratios (r = 0.61). Yet, a high peripheral MVD was not associated with strong peripheral enhancement (r = -0.09). High enhancement ratios, washout rates, and early enhancement peaks were associated with unfavorable, albeit not significant, prognostic indicators. Visible rim enhancement was the most accurate prognostic enhancement criterion for estrogen receptor status (P = .007), tumor grade (P = .06), and lymph node status (P = .046). Washout was the best discriminating criterion for proliferative activity. CONCLUSION: The different enhancement behaviors of malignant and benign breast lesions cannot be explained by MVD alone; however, a low MVD in the center of carcinoma is reflected quantitatively by a high enhancement ratio and qualitatively by rim enhancement, with an implication of adverse prognosis.

Combination of low and high resolution sequences in two orientations for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: more than a compromise.

The purpose was to combine T1-weighted 3D gradient echo sequences at low and high spatial resolution (and short and longer acquisition time, respectively) in two orientations without compromising signal/time curve analysis and to evaluate the incremental value of assessing architectural features in high resolution images in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR mammography. T1-weighted 3D-FLASH sequences in a 1.5-T scanner (512 x 256 pixel matrix at high resolution; 256 x 128 pixels at low resolution sequences, 72 slices, 1.7-mm slice thickness, TR 8.8 ms, TE 4.5 ms, flip angle 25 degrees) were acquired in a special order during a single investigation. Three observers evaluated architectural features of 36 histopathologically proven lesions using high or low resolution images independently. Architectural features of each lesion were assessed by rating on two three-point scales. Kappa statistics verified the decrease of inter-observer variability. All observers improved assessment of architectural features regarding high resolution images in transversal and coronal orientation (observer A: eight positive, three negative corrections; B: 12/5; C: 16/4). Most positive corrections resulted from improved detection of morphologic criteria of malignancy. Mean inter-observer agreement significantly (P<0.05) increased from "slight" to "moderate" (mean weighted kappa increased from 0.185 to 0.422). This protocol at the charge of slightly enlarged time for measurement offers an elegant way to improve analysis of architectural features in MRM.

Outcome analysis and rational management of enhancing lesions incidentally detected on contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and clinical consequence of incidentally detected enhancing lesions on MRI of the breast. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. MRI of the breast (1.0-T scanner, dynamic gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted three-dimensional gradient-echo sequence, double breast coil) was performed on 1273 women for different indications. Enhancing incidental lesions were defined as enhancing lesions on MRIs that were not expected from findings on the previous conventional imaging. They were classified in five assessment categories using a scoring system based on morphologic and kinetic enhancement characteristics. Detection of enhancing incidental lesions resulted in a review of mammograms and sonograms with the aim of also localizing these lesions on conventional imaging. The lesions were either biopsied or followed up. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent (274/1086) of all enhancing lesions detected in the study population were enhancing incidental lesions. Enhancing incidental lesions were found in 16% (210/1273) of all study patients. Forty-one percent (113/274) of the enhancing incidental lesions were histologically confirmed. Forty-eight percent (54/113) of the biopsied and 20% (54/274) of all enhancing incidental lesions were malignant. Eleven percent (54/508) of all malignant lesions occurring in the 1273 women were detected solely through additional MRI. Fifty-seven percent (31/54) of these MRI-detected malignant lesions could be identified on a reevaluation of sonograms and mammograms. CONCLUSION: Detection of enhancing incidental lesions should lead to a thorough reevaluation of mammograms and sonograms. If not reidentified, suspicious enhancing incidental lesions should be biopsied, and enhancing incidental lesions that are probably benign should be carefully followed up. Indeterminate enhancing incidental lesions should be histologically examined by minimally invasive techniques or, if they are small, followed up by another MRI 6 months later.

Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to compare the diagnostic value of whole-breast sonography and MR imaging as adjunctive techniques to mammography and to determine whether MR imaging should be used routinely in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: . One hundred four women (age range, 34-84 years; mean age, 60 years) with findings highly suggestive of malignancy in the breast were examined with mammography, sonography, and dynamic MR imaging before undergoing surgery. All visualized suspicious lesions were correlated histologically. The diagnostic relevance of sonographic and MR imaging findings was compared with the diagnostic value of the findings of clinical examination and mammography alone. RESULTS: . Twenty-seven tumors showed multifocal or multicentric invasive growth at pathology. Of these 27, 48% were correctly diagnosed via mammography alone; 63%, via the combination of mammography and sonography; and 81%, via MR imaging. Nine of the index tumors were invisible on mammography but were detected on sonography. Use of sonography benefited 13 patients and produced two studies with false-positive findings. Use of MR imaging benefited seven patients and produced eight studies with false-positive findings. In summary, 93% of all patients gained no advantage from MR imaging. Relevant additional findings were significantly more frequent in patients with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: Although MR imaging is most sensitive for the detection of small tumors, routine preoperative MR imaging appears to be unnecessary for most patients if a combination of mammography and whole-breast sonography is used. Additional MR imaging can be restricted to problematic cases in women with dense breast parenchyma.

Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of malignant breast lesions not identified with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast tissue specimens were obtained in 464 of 967 patients who had undergone dynamic gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted fast low-angle shot three-dimensional MR imaging of both breasts. A comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the prospectively recorded findings of mammography, ultrasonography (US), and MR imaging with the histopathologic results was performed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. MR imaging examination findings that caused a false-negative diagnosis were reviewed to identify possible sources of error. RESULTS: Histopathologic analysis revealed 244 benign and 354 malignant lesions. The sensitivity values for mammography, mammography combined with US, MR imaging alone, and the combination of all three modalities were 73.7%, 88.1%, 88.4%, and 95.5%, and the areas under the ROC curves were 0.744, 0.829, 0.850, and 0.876, respectively. Twenty-eight (8.4%) of 334 invasive and 13 (65%) of 20 intraductal carcinomas were missed with MR imaging. In eight cases, motion artifacts (n = 1), tumor location near or beyond the outer boundary of the field of view (n = 3), inadequate infusion of the contrast material (n = 1), and masking of the tumors by intensively enhanced surrounding glandular tissue (n = 3) were identified as adequate explanations for the false-negative results. The remaining missed breast cancers (n = 33) exhibited very diffuse growth patterns or were 5 mm or smaller. CONCLUSION: MR imaging did not depict 41 of 354 malignant tumors for several reasons.