Feasibility and Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy for Nipple Lesions: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the superficial location, suspicious findings of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) are not amenable to stereotactic or MRI-guided sampling and have historically necessitated surgical biopsy or skin-punch biopsy. There are limited reports of US-guided core biopsy of the nipple (US-CBN). OBJECTIVE: We report our nearly 3-year pilot experience with US-CBN at an academic breast imaging center. METHODS: An institutional review board-exempt and HIPAA-compliant retrospective review was performed. We assessed patient demographics, breast imaging characteristics, procedural data, pathology, and outcomes. RESULTS: Nine female patients aged 27 to 64 underwent US-CBN from January 2021 to October 2023. Initial imaging abnormalities included abnormal MRI enhancement, mammographic calcifications, and sonographic masses. After initial or second-look US, all imaging findings had sonographic correlates for biopsy specimens, the majority of which were sonographic masses (8/9). US-CBN was performed by 6 breast radiologists using a variety of devices. All biopsy specimen results were concordant with sonographic abnormalities, although 1 was considered discordant from the initial abnormality seen on MRI. There were no complications, and discomfort during the procedure was well-treated. Two patients (22%, 2/9) were diagnosed with malignancy. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated that US-CBN can be performed by a breast radiologist for definitive diagnosis of suspicious nipple abnormalities seen on breast imaging, avoiding surgery, and maintaining nipple integrity. In our population, 22% (2/9) of US-CBNs revealed malignancy.

Racial Disparities and Strategies for Improving Equity in Diagnostic Follow-Up for Abnormal Screening Mammograms.

PURPOSE: Black and White women undergo screening mammography at similar rates, but racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes persist. To assess potential contributors, we investigated delays in follow-up after abnormal imaging by race/ethnicity. METHODS: Women who underwent screening mammography at our urban academic center from January 2015 to February 2018 and received a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0 assessment were included. Kaplan-Meier estimates described distributions of time between diagnostic events from (1) screening to diagnostic imaging and (2) diagnostic imaging to biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the associations between race/ethnicity and receipt of follow-up within 15 and 30 days. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and fifty-four women were included (48.6% non-Hispanic [NH] Black, 38.2% NH White, 13.1% other/unknown). Median time between screening and diagnostic imaging varied by race/ethnicity (White: 7 days [IQR, 2-14]; Black: 12 days [IQR, 7-23]; other/unknown: 9 days [IQR, 5-21]). There were similar disparities in days between diagnostic imaging and biopsy (White: 12 [IQR, 7-24]; Black: 21 [IQR, 13-37]; other/unknown: 16 [IQR, 9-30]) and between screening and biopsy (White: 20 [IQR, 11-41]; Black: 35 [IQR, 22-63]; other/unknown: 27.5 [IQR, 17-42]). After adjustment, odds of diagnostic imaging follow-up within 15 days of screening were lower for Black versus White women (odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80]; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this diverse cohort, disparities in timely diagnostic follow-up after abnormal breast screening were observed, with Black women waiting 1.75 times as long as White women to obtain a tissue diagnosis. National guidelines for time to diagnostic follow-up may facilitate more timely breast cancer care and potentially affect outcomes.

Feasibility of risk assessment for breast cancer molecular subtypes.

PURPOSE: Few breast cancer risk assessment models account for the risk profiles of different tumor subtypes. This study evaluated whether a subtype-specific approach improves discrimination. METHODS: Among 3389 women who had a screening mammogram and were later diagnosed with invasive breast cancer we performed multinomial logistic regression with tumor subtype as the outcome and known breast cancer risk factors as predictors. Tumor subtypes were defined by expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) based on immunohistochemistry. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Absolute risk of each subtype was estimated by proportioning Gail absolute risk estimates by the predicted probabilities for each subtype. We then compared risk factor distributions for women in the highest deciles of risk for each subtype. RESULTS: There were 3,073 ER/PR+ HER2 - , 340 ER/PR +HER2 + , 126 ER/PR-ER2+, and 300 triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC). Discrimination differed by subtype; ER/PR-HER2+ (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.59, 0.69) and TNBC (AUC: 0.64, 95% CI 0.61, 0.68) had better discrimination than ER/PR+HER2+ (AUC: 0.61, 95% CI 0.58, 0.64). Compared to other subtypes, patients at high absolute risk of TNBC were younger, mostly Black, had no family history of breast cancer, and higher BMI. Those at high absolute risk of HER2+ cancers were younger and had lower BMI. CONCLUSION: Our study provides proof of concept that stratifying risk prediction for breast cancer subtypes may enable identification of patients with unique profiles conferring increased risk for tumor subtypes.

Abbreviated Breast MRI for Supplemental Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Baseline Versus Subsequent-Round Examinations.

BACKGROUND. Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) achieves a higher cancer detection rate (CDR) than digital breast tomosynthesis when applied for baseline (i.e., first-round) supplemental screening of individuals with dense breasts. Limited literature has evaluated subsequent (i.e., sequential) AB-MRI screening rounds. OBJECTIVE. This study aimed to compare outcomes between baseline and subsequent rounds of screening AB-MRI in individuals with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients with dense breasts who otherwise had an average risk for breast cancer and underwent AB-MRI for supplemental screening between December 20, 2016, and May 10, 2023. The clinical interpretations and results of recommended biopsies for AB-MRI examinations were extracted from the EMR. Baseline and subsequent-round AB-MRI examinations were compared. RESULTS. The final sample included 2585 AB-MRI examinations (2007 baseline and 578 subsequent-round examinations) performed for supplemental screening of 2007 women (mean age, 57.1 years old) with dense breasts. Of 2007 baseline examinations, 1658 (82.6%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 171 (8.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 178 (8.9%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of 578 subsequent-round examinations, 533 (92.2%) were assessed as BI-RADS category 1 or 2, 20 (3.5%) as BI-RADS category 3, and 25 (4.3%) as BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (p < .001). The abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 17.4% (349/2007) for baseline examinations versus 7.8% (45/578) for subsequent-round examinations (p < .001). For baseline examinations, PPV2 was 21.3% (38/178), PPV3 was 26.6% (38/143), and the CDR was 18.9 cancers per 1000 examinations (38/2007). For subsequent-round examinations, PPV2 was 28.0% (7/25) (p = .45), PPV3 was 29.2% (7/24) (p = .81), and the CDR was 12.1 cancers per 1000 examinations (7/578) (p = .37). All 45 cancers diagnosed by baseline or subsequent-round AB-MRI were stage 0 or 1. Seven cancers diagnosed by subsequent-round AB-MRI had a mean interval of 872 ± 373 (SD) days since prior AB-MRI and node-negative status at surgical axillary evaluation; six had an invasive component, all measuring 1.2 cm or less. CONCLUSION. Subsequent rounds of AB-MRI screening of individuals with dense breasts had lower AIR than baseline examinations while maintaining a high CDR. All cancers detected by subsequent-round examinations were early-stage node-negative cancers. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings support sequential AB-MRI for supplemental screening in individuals with dense breasts. Further investigations are warranted to optimize the screening interval.

Providing optimal care in the neonatal care units in India: How Covid-19 exacerbated existing barriers.

Nearly one quarter (600,000) of all neonatal deaths worldwide per year occur in India. To reduce neonatal mortality, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare established neonatal care units, including neonatal intensive care units and specialized neonatal care units to provide immediate care at birth, resuscitation for asphyxiation, postnatal care, follow up for high-risk newborns, immunization, and referral for additional or complex healthcare services. Despite these efforts, neonatal mortality remains high, and measures taken to reduce mortality have been severely challenged by multiple problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. In this qualitative study, we conducted seven focus group discussions with newborn care unit nurses and pediatric residents and 35 key informant interviews with pediatricians, residents, nurses, annual equipment maintenance contractors, equipment manufacturers, and Ministry personnel in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra between December 2019 and November 2020. The goal of the study was to understand barriers and facilitators to providing optimal care to neonates, including the challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 exacerbated existing barriers to providing optimal care to neonates in these newborn care units. As a result of Covid-19, we found the units were even more short-staffed than usual, with trained pediatric nurses and essential equipment diverted from newborn care to attend to patients with Covid-19. Regular training of neonatal nursing staff was also disrupted due to Covid-19, leaving many staff without the skills to provide optimate care to neonates. Infection control was also exacerbated by Covid-19. This study highlights the barriers to providing optimal care for neonates were made even more challenging during Covid-19 because of the diversion of critically important neonatal equipment and staff trained to use that equipment to Covid-19 wards. The barriers at the individual, facility, and systems levels will remain challenging as the Covid-19 pandemic continues.

Impact of super-resolution and image acquisition on the detection of calcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVES: A virtual clinical trial (VCT) method is proposed to determine the limit of calcification detection in tomosynthesis. METHODS: Breast anatomy, focal findings, image acquisition, and interpretation (n = 14 readers) were simulated using screening data (n = 660 patients). Calcifications (0.2-0.4 mm3) were inserted into virtual breast phantoms. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions were simulated assuming various acquisition geometries: source motion (continuous and step-and-shoot), detector element size (140 and 70 µm), and reconstructed voxel size (35-140 µm). VCT results were estimated using multiple-reader multiple-case analyses and d' statistics. Signal-to-noise (SNR) analyses were also performed using BR3D phantoms. RESULTS: Source motion and reconstructed voxel size demonstrated significant changes in the performance of imaging systems. Acquisition geometries that use 70 µm reconstruction voxel size and step-and-shoot motion significantly improved calcification detection. Comparing 70 with 100 µm reconstructed voxel size for step-and-shoot, the ΔAUC was 0.0558 (0.0647) and d' ratio was 1.27 (1.29) for 140 µm (70 µm) detector element size. Comparing step-and-shoot with a continuous motion for a 70 µm reconstructed voxel size, the ΔAUC was 0.0863 (0.0434) and the d' ratio was 1.40 (1.19) for 140 µm (70 µm) detector element. Small detector element sizes (e.g., 70 µm) did not significantly improve detection. The SNR results with the BR3D phantom show that calcification detection is dependent upon reconstructed voxel size and detector element size, supporting VCT results with comparable agreement (ratios: d' = 1.16 ± 0.11, SNR = 1.34 ± 0.13). CONCLUSION: DBT acquisition geometries that use super-resolution (smaller reconstructed voxels than the detector element size) combined with step-and-shoot motion have the potential to improve the detection of calcifications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Calcifications may not always be discernable in tomosynthesis because of differences in acquisition and reconstruction methods. VCTs can identify strategies to optimize acquisition and reconstruction parameters for calcification detection in tomosynthesis, most notably through super-resolution in the reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • Super-resolution improves calcification detection and SNR in tomosynthesis; specifically, with the use of smaller reconstruction voxels. • Calcification detection using step-and-shoot motion is superior to that using continuous tube motion. • A detector element size of 70 µm does not provide better detection than 140 µm for small calcifications at the threshold of detectability.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline's screening recommendations.

A Clinical Risk Model for Personalized Screening and Prevention of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Image-derived artificial intelligence (AI) risk models have shown promise in identifying high-risk women in the short term. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models expanded with clinical factors has not been investigated. METHODS: We performed a case-cohort study of 8110 women aged 40-74 randomly selected from a Swedish mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 together with 1661 incident BCs diagnosed before January 2022. The imaging-only AI risk model extracted mammographic features and age at screening. Additional lifestyle/familial risk factors were incorporated into the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI model. Absolute risks were calculated using the two models and the clinical Tyrer-Cuzick v8 model. Age-adjusted model performances were compared across the 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: The AUCs of the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model ranged from 0.75 (95%CI: 0.70-0.80) to 0.68 (95%CI: 0.66-0.69) 1-10 years after study entry. Corresponding AUCs were 0.72 (95%CI: 0.66-0.78) to 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63-0.66) for the imaging-only model and 0.62 (95%CI: 0.55-0.68) to 0.60 (95%CI: 0.58-0.61) for Tyrer-Cuzick v8. The increased performances were observed in multiple risk subgroups and cancer subtypes. Among the 5% of women at highest risk, the PPV was 5.8% using the lifestyle/familial-expanded model compared with 5.3% using the imaging-only model, p < 0.01, and 4.6% for Tyrer-Cuzick, p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: The lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model showed higher performance for both long-term and short-term risk assessment compared with imaging-only and Tyrer-Cuzick models.

Breast density quantitative measures and breast cancer risk among screened Black women.

Mammographic density is a strong predictor of breast cancer but only slightly increased the discriminatory ability of existing risk prediction models in previous studies with limited racial diversity. We assessed discrimination and calibration of models consisting of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System density and quantitative density measures. Patients were followed up from the date of first screening mammogram until invasive breast cancer diagnosis or 5-year follow-up. Areas under the curve for White women stayed consistently around 0.59 for all models, whereas the area under the curve increased slightly from 0.60 to 0.62 when adding dense area and area percent density to the BCRAT model for Black women. All women saw underprediction in all models, with Black women having less underprediction. Adding quantitative density to the BCRAT did not statistically significantly improve prediction for White or Black women. Future studies should evaluate whether volumetric breast density improves risk prediction.

Pervasiveness of Open Journal Invitations Across Radiology Specialties.

This study examines the patterns of faculty solicitations by open-access (OA) publishers in radiology. The purpose of the research is to determine the factors that predict the likelihood of receiving such solicitations. We recruited 6 faculty members from 7 subspecialties in radiology to collect emails from OA journals for 2 weeks. We assessed the number of publications by each faculty member in 2022 and 2023, the previous 5 years, and entire career in PubMed. For each email, the solicitation was categorized for article submission, article review, and editorial board membership. An invitation to submit a manuscript was the most common type of solicitation received, followed by editorial boards and reviewer invites. Faculty with more than 10 indexed articles in PubMed since January 2022 were significantly more likely to receive article solicitations than those with 10 or fewer publications. Additionally, scholars with more than 40 articles since 2018 were significantly more likely to receive more than 10 article solicitations. Full professors were significantly more likely to receive solicitations to serve on editorial boards. A multivariate linear regression model predicted that publications since 2022 had the highest predictive value for the number of article solicitations and total solicitations. This study provides insight into the patterns of mass communication and various solicitations by OA publishers in radiology. The study highlights the importance of publication productivity as a predictor of article and total email solicitations and of professorial rank for editorial board invitations.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings.

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Long-Term Performance of an Image-Based Short-Term Risk Model for Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Image-derived artificial intelligence-based short-term risk models for breast cancer have shown high discriminatory performance compared with traditional lifestyle/familial-based risk models. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models has not been investigated. METHODS: We performed a case-cohort study of 8,604 randomly selected women within a mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 in Sweden for women age 40-74 years. Mammograms, age, lifestyle, and familial risk factors were collected at study entry. In all, 2,028 incident breast cancers were identified through register matching in May 2022 (206 incident breast cancers were found in the subcohort). The image-based model extracted mammographic features (density, microcalcifications, masses, and left-right breast asymmetries of these features) and age from study entry mammograms. The Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model incorporates self-reported lifestyle and familial risk factors and mammographic density to estimate risk. Absolute risks were estimated, and age-adjusted AUC model performances (aAUCs) were compared across the 10-year period. RESULTS: The aAUCs of the image-based risk model ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.78) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.66) for breast cancers developed 1-10 years after study entry; the corresponding Tyrer-Cuzick aAUCs were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.67) to 0.60 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61). For symptomatic cancers, the aAUCs for the image-based model were ≥0.75 during the first 3 years. Women with high and low mammographic density showed similar aAUCs. Throughout the 10-year follow-up, 20% of all women with breast cancers were deemed high-risk at study entry by the image-based risk model compared with 7.1% using the lifestyle familial-based model (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The image-based risk model outperformed the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 model for both short-term and long-term risk assessment and could be used to identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and risk reduction strategies.

Changes in mammographic density and risk of breast cancer among a diverse cohort of women undergoing mammography screening.

PURPOSE: Mammographic density (MD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor. MD may change over time, with potential implications for breast cancer risk. Few studies have assessed associations between MD change and breast cancer in racially diverse populations. We investigated the relationships between MD and MD change over time and breast cancer risk in a large, diverse screening cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 8462 women who underwent ≥ 2 screening mammograms from Sept. 2010 to Jan. 2015 (N = 20,766 exams); 185 breast cancers were diagnosed 1-7 years after screening. Breast percent density (PD) and dense area (DA) were estimated from raw digital mammograms (Hologic Inc.) using LIBRA (v1.0.4). For each MD measure, we modeled breast density change between two sequential visits as a function of demographic and risk covariates. We used Cox regression to examine whether varying degrees of breast density change were associated with breast cancer risk, accounting for multiple exams per woman. RESULTS: PD at any screen was significantly associated with breast cancer risk (hazard ratio (HR) for PD = 1.03 (95% CI [1.01, 1.05], p < 0.0005), but neither change in breast density nor more extreme than expected changes in breast density were associated with breast cancer risk. We found no evidence of differences in density change or breast cancer risk due to density change by race. Results using DA were essentially identical. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large racially diverse cohort, we found no evidence of association between short-term change in MD and risk of breast cancer, suggesting that short-term MD change is not a strong predictor for risk.

Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. In digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density is assessed visually using the four-category scale developed by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition as of November 2022). Epidemiologically based risk models, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model (version 8), demonstrate superior modeling performance when mammographic density is incorporated. Beyond just density, a separate mammographic measure of breast cancer risk is parenchymal textural complexity. With advancements in radiomics and deep learning, mammographic textural patterns can be assessed quantitatively and incorporated into risk models. Other supplemental screening modalities, such as breast US and MRI, offer independent risk measures complementary to those derived from mammography. Breast US allows the two components of fibroglandular tissue (stromal and glandular) to be visualized separately in a manner that is not possible with mammography. A higher glandular component at screening breast US is associated with higher risk. With MRI, a higher background parenchymal enhancement of the fibroglandular tissue has also emerged as an imaging marker for risk assessment. Imaging markers observed at mammography, US, and MRI are powerful tools in refining breast cancer risk prediction, beyond mammographic density alone.

Mammographic Breast Density: Current Assessment Methods, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions.

Mammographic breast density is widely accepted as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. In addition, because dense breast tissue may mask breast malignancies, breast density is inversely related to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Given the risks associated with breast density, as well as ongoing efforts to stratify individual risk and personalize breast cancer screening and prevention, numerous studies have sought to better understand the factors that impact breast density, and to develop and implement reproducible, quantitative methods to assess mammographic density. Breast density assessments have been incorporated into risk assessment models to improve risk stratification. Recently, novel techniques for analyzing mammographic parenchymal complexity, or texture, have been explored as potential means of refining mammographic tissue-based risk assessment beyond breast density.

Obesity and metabolic dysfunction correlate with background parenchymal enhancement in premenopausal women.

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that obesity and metabolic abnormalities correlate with background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), the volume and intensity of enhancing fibroglandular breast tissue on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: Participants included 59 premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 . Metabolic parameters included dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-quantified body composition, plasma biomarkers of insulin resistance, adipokines, inflammation, lipids, and urinary sex hormones. BPE was assessed using computerized algorithms on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: BMI was positively correlated with BPE (r = 0.69; p < 0.001); participants with obesity had higher BPE than those without obesity (404.9 ± 189.6 vs. 261.8 ± 143.8 cm2 ; Δ: 143.1 cm2 [95% CI: 49.5-236.7]; p = 0.003). Total body fat mass (r = 0.68; p < 0.001), body fat percentage (r = 0.64; p < 0.001), visceral adipose tissue area (r = 0.65; p < 0.001), subcutaneous adipose tissue area (r = 0.60; p < 0.001), insulin (r = 0.59; p < 0.001), glucose (r = 0.35; p = 0.011), homeostatic model of insulin resistance (r = 0.62; p < 0.001), and leptin (r = 0.60; p < 0.001) were positively correlated with BPE. Adiponectin (r = -0.44; p < 0.001) was negatively correlated with BPE. Plasma biomarkers of inflammation and lipids and urinary sex hormones were not correlated with BPE. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer, increased BPE is associated with obesity, insulin resistance, leptin, and adiponectin.

Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening: A Preliminary Real-world Experience.

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.