Mammographic calcifications undergoing percutaneous biopsy: outcome in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the positive predictive values (PPVs) of BI-RADS categories used to assess pure mammographic calcifications in women with and without a previous history of breast cancer (PHBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, all consecutive pure mammographic calcifications (n = 320) undergoing a stereotactic biopsy between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Mammograms were evaluated in consensus by two radiologists according to BI-RADS and blinded to patient history and pathology results. Final pathologic results were used as the standard of reference. PPV of BI-RADS categories were compared between the two groups. Data were evaluated using standard statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-eight patients (274 lesions, median age 54 years, inter-quartile range, 50-65 years) with a PHBC (n = 46) and without a PHBC (n = 222) were included. Overall PPVs were the following: BI-RADS 2, 0% (0 of 56); BI-RADS 3, 9.1% (1 of 11); BI-RADS 4a, 16.2% (6 of 37); BI-RADS 4b, 37.5% (48 of 128); BI-RADS 4c, 47.3% (18 of 38) and BI-RADS 5, 100% (4 of 4). The PPV of BI-RADS categories was similar in patients with and without a PHBC (P = .715). Calcifications were more often malignant in patients with a PHBC older than 10 years (47.3%, 9 of 19) compared to 1-2 years (25%, 1 of 4), 2-5 years (20%, 2 of 10) and 5-10 years (0%, of 13) from the first breast cancer (P = .005). CONCLUSION: PPV of mammographic calcifications is similar in women with or without PHBC when BI-RADS classification is strictly applied. A higher risk of malignancy was observed in patients with a PHBC longer than 10 years.

Atypical ductal hyperplasia: breast DCE-MRI can be used to reduce unnecessary open surgical excision.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI in predicting malignancy after percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this retrospective study, 68 lesions (66 women) with percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of ADH and pre-operative breast DCE-MRI performed between January 2016 and December 2017 were included. Two radiologists reviewed in consensus mammography, ultrasound, and MR images. The final diagnosis after surgical excision was used as standard of reference. Clinical and imaging features were compared in patients with and without upgrade to malignancy after surgery. The diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI in predicting malignant upgrade was evaluated. RESULTS: A 9-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy was performed in 40 (58.8%) cases and a 14-gauge core needle biopsy in 28 (41.2%) cases. Upgrade to malignancy was observed in 17/68 (25%) lesions, including 4/17 (23.5%) cases of invasive cancer and 13/17 (76.5%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In 16/17 (94.1%) malignant and 20/51 (39.2%) benign lesions, a suspicious enhancement could be recognized in DCE-MRI. The malignant lesion without suspicious enhancement was a low-grade DCIS (4 mm size). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of DCE-MRI on predicting malignancy were respectively 94.1%, 60.7%, 44.4%, and 96.8%. No other clinical or imaging features were significantly different in patients with and without upgrade to malignancy. CONCLUSION: After a percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of ADH, malignancy can be ruled out in most of the cases, if no suspicious enhancement is present in the biopsy area at DCE-MRI. Breast DCE-MRI may be used to avoid surgery in more than half of the patients with final benign diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Breast DCE-MRI can safely rule out malignancy if no suspicious enhancement is present in the biopsy area after a percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of ADH. • All cases of upgrade to high-grade DCIS and invasive cancers can be identified at breast DCE-MRI after a percutaneous biopsy diagnosis of ADH. • Breast DCE-MRI may be used to avoid surgery in more than half of the patients with final benign diagnosis.

Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value of combining one-view mammography (cranio-caudal, CC) with the complementary view tomosynthesis (mediolateral-oblique, MLO) in comparison to standard two-view mammography (MX) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization. METHODS: A free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) experiment was conducted independently by six breast radiologists, obtaining data from 463 breasts of 250 patients. Differences in mean lesion detection fraction (LDF) and mean lesion characterization fraction (LCF) were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare clinical performance of the combination of techniques to standard two-view digital mammography. RESULTS: The 463 cases (breasts) reviewed included 258 with one to three lesions each, and 205 with no lesions. The 258 cases with lesions included 77 cancers in 68 breasts and 271 benign lesions to give a total of 348 proven lesions. The combination, DBT(MLO)+MX(CC), was superior to MX (CC+MLO) in both lesion detection (LDF) and lesion characterization (LCF) overall and for benign lesions. DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) was non-inferior to two-view MX for malignant lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that readers' capabilities in detecting and characterizing breast lesions are improved by combining single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and single-view mammography compared to two-view digital mammography. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis is becoming adopted as an adjunct to mammography (MX) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion detection (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in cancer detection • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion characterization (overall and benign lesions) • DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in characterization of malignant lesions.

Epirubicin and docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment of hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative breast cancer: findings from two successive phase II studies.

BACKGROUND: We report on the activity of the combination of epirubicin and docetaxel given in neoadjuvant setting for 4 and 8 cycles respectively in 2 successive series of patients with large operable or locally advanced, hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated from 2002 to 2006 with epirubicin 90 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 3 weeks for 4 cycles before and 4 cycles after surgery (Series I - 13 patients), and from 2006 to 2010 with the same regimen administered for 8 cycles preoperatively (Series II - 37 patients), plus hormonal therapy for 5 years and radiation therapy if indicated. All Series I and 32 Series II patients were able to complete the preoperative chemotherapy. RESULTS: A complete response was found in 1 patient from Series I and 13 patients from Series II and the partial remission in 10 patients from Series I and 21 patients from Series II. Two Series I and 3 Series II patients did not respond clinically. Response rate (Series I/Series II) was 84/92%. All 50 patients underwent surgery. In Series I patients, 3 pCR occurred in the breast and the axilla was histologically negative in 2 cases. No evidence of disease both in the breast and in the axilla was achieved in 7.6% (1/13) of patients. In Series II patients, 8 pCR occurred in the breast and axilla was histologically negative in 15 patients. No evidence of disease both in the breast and in the axilla occurred in 10.8% (4/37) of patients. G3-G4 toxicity included myelosuppression in 3 patients from Series I and all patients from Series II, and mucositis in 1 patient from Series I and 4 patients from series II. No other G3-4 toxicities or toxic deaths occurred. Five-year progression free survival was 38% and 90% in Series I and Series II patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pathologic complete remissions was lower in our patient population, compared to reported data. A longer duration of the preoperative treatment might be associated with a longer progression-free survival.

Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography. METHODS: A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance. RESULTS: The combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX((CC+MLO))) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = -0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P = 0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P = 0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P = 0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population. METHODS: The study enrolled 200 consenting women who had at least one breast lesion discovered by mammography and/or ultrasound classified as doubtful or suspicious or probably malignant. They underwent tomosynthesis in one view [mediolateral oblique (MLO)] of both breasts at a dose comparable to that of standard screen-film mammography in two views [craniocaudal (CC) and MLO]. Images were rated by six breast radiologists using the BIRADS score. Ratings were compared with the truth established according to the standard of care and a multiple-reader multiple-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Clinical performance of DBT compared with that of FFDM was evaluated in terms of the difference between areas under ROC curves (AUCs) for BIRADS scores. RESULTS: Overall clinical performance with DBT and FFDM for malignant versus all other cases was not significantly different (AUCs 0.851 vs 0.836, p = 0.645). The lower limit of the 95% CI or the difference between DBT and FFDM AUCs was -4.9%. CONCLUSION: Clinical performance of tomosynthesis in one view at the same total dose as standard screen-film mammography is not inferior to digital mammography in two views.