To determine the performance of positron emission mammography (PEM), as compared with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including the effect on surgical management, in ipsilateral breasts with cancer.
...Four hundred seventy-two women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were offered breast-conserving surgery consented from September 2006 to November 2008 to participate in a multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. Participants underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PEM in randomized order; resultant images were interpreted independently. Added biopsies and changes in surgical procedure for the ipsilateral breast were correlated with histopathologic findings. Performance characteristics were compared by using the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations.
Three hundred eighty-eight women (median age, 58 years; age range, 26-93 years; median estimated tumor size, 1.5 cm) completed the study. Additional cancers were found in 82 (21%) women (82 ipsilateral breasts; median tumor size, 0.7 cm). Twenty-eight (34%) of the 82 breasts were identified with both PEM and MR imaging; 21 (26%) breasts, with MR imaging only; 14 (17%) breasts, with PEM only; and seven (8.5%) breasts, with mammography and ultrasonography. Twelve (15%) cases of additional cancer were missed at all imaging examinations. Integration of PEM and MR imaging increased cancer detection-to 61 (74%) of 82 breasts versus 49 (60%) of 82 breasts identified with MR imaging alone (P < .001). Of 306 breasts without additional cancer, 279 (91.2%) were correctly assessed with PEM compared with 264 (86.3%) that were correctly assessed with MR imaging (P = .03). The positive predictive value of biopsy prompted by PEM findings (47 66% of 71 cases) was higher than that of biopsy prompted by MR findings (61 53% of 116 cases) (P = .016). Of 116 additional cancers, 61 (53%) were depicted by MR imaging and 47 (41%) were depicted by PEM (P = .043). Fifty-six (14%) of the 388 women required mastectomy: 40 (71%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 20 (36%) were identified with PEM (P < .001). Eleven (2.8%) women underwent unnecessary mastectomy, which was prompted by only MR findings in five women, by only PEM findings in one, and by PEM and MR findings in five. Thirty-three (8.5%) women required wider excision: 24 (73%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 22 (67%) were identified with PEM.
PEM and MR imaging had comparable breast-level sensitivity, although MR imaging had greater lesion-level sensitivity and more accurately depicted the need for mastectomy. PEM had greater specificity at the breast and lesion levels. Eighty-nine (23%) participants required more extensive surgery: 61 (69%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 41 (46%) were identified with PEM (P = .003). Fourteen (3.6%) women had tumors seen only at PEM.
To prospectively determine cancer yield, callback and biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV) of mammography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and ultrasonography (US) in women at high risk ...for breast cancer.
The study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant, and informed consent was obtained. We conducted a prospective pilot study of screening mammography, MR, and US in asymptomatic women 25 years of age or older who were genetically at high risk, defined as BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers or with at least a 20% probability of carrying a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. All imaging modalities were performed within 90 days of each other. Data were analyzed by using exact confidence intervals (CIs) and the McNemar test.
A total of 195 women were enrolled in this study over a 6-month period, and 171 completed all study examinations (mammography, US, and MR). Average age of the 171 participants was 46 years +/- 10.2 (standard deviation). Sixteen biopsies were performed and six cancers were detected, for an overall 3.5% cancer yield. MR enabled detection of all six cancers; mammography, two; and US, one. The diagnostic yields for each test were 3.5% for MR, 0.6% for US, and 1.2% for mammography. MR, US, and mammography findings prompted biopsy in 8.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% of patients, respectively. None of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The PPV of biopsies performed as a result of MR was 43%.
Screening MR imaging had a higher biopsy rate but helped detect more cancers than either mammography or US. US had the highest false-negative rate compared with mammography and MR, enabling detection of only one in six cancers in high-risk women.
False-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force.
To ...measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening.
The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms.
Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis.
The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women's self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results.
Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women's anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95).
False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women's intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.
The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography.
The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital ...Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial enrolled 49,528 women to compare FFDM and screen-film mammography for screening. For quality assurance purposes, technical parameters including breast compression force, compressed breast thickness, mean glandular dose, and the number of additional views needed for complete breast coverage were recorded and analyzed for both FFDM and screen-film mammography on approximately 10% of study subjects at each site.
Technical data were compiled on 5,102 study subjects at 33 sites. Clean data were obtained for 4,366 (88%) of those cases. Mean compression force was 10.7 dN for screen-film mammography and 10.1 dN for FFDM (5.5% difference, p < 0.001). Mean compressed breast thickness was 5.3 cm for screen-film mammography and 5.4 cm for FFDM (1.7% difference, p < 0.001). Mean glandular dose per view averaged 2.37 mGy for screen-film mammography and 1.86 mGy for FFDM, 22% lower for digital than screen-film mammography, with sizeable variations among digital manufacturers. Twelve percent of screen-film mammography cases required more than the normal four views, whereas 21% of FFDM cases required more than the four normal views to cover all breast tissue. When extra views were included, mean glandular dose per subject was 4.15 mGy for FFDM and 4.98 mGy for screen-film mammography, 17% lower for FFDM than screen-film mammography.
Our results show that differences between screen-film mammography and FFDM in compression force and indicated compressed breast thickness were small. On average, FFDM had 22% lower mean glandular dose than screen-film mammography per acquired view, with sizeable variations in average FFDM doses by manufacturer.
Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases both mammographic density and breast cancer incidence. Whether mammographic density change associated with estrogen plus progestin initiation predicts breast ...cancer risk is unknown.
We conducted an ancillary nested case-control study within the Women's Health Initiative trial that randomly assigned postmenopausal women to daily conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg plus medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg or placebo. Mammographic density was assessed from mammograms taken prior to and one year after random assignment for 174 women who later developed breast cancer (cases) and 733 healthy women (controls). Logistic regression analyses included adjustment for confounders and baseline mammographic density when appropriate.
Among women in the estrogen plus progestin arm (97 cases/378 controls), each 1% positive change in percent mammographic density increased breast cancer risk 3% (odds ratio OR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.01 to 1.06). For women in the highest quintile of mammographic density change (>19.3% increase), breast cancer risk increased 3.6-fold (95% CI = 1.52 to 8.56). The effect of estrogen plus progestin use on breast cancer risk (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.82) was eliminated in this study, after adjusting for change in mammographic density (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.51).
We found the one-year change in mammographic density after estrogen plus progestin initiation predicted subsequent increase in breast cancer risk. All of the increased risk from estrogen plus progestin use was mediated through mammographic density change. Doctors should evaluate changes in mammographic density with women who initiate estrogen plus progestin therapy and discuss the breast cancer risk implications.
To retrospectively compare the accuracy of digital versus film mammography in population subgroups of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) defined by combinations of age, ...menopausal status, and breast density, by using either biopsy results or follow-up information as the reference standard.
DMIST included women who underwent both digital and film screening mammography. Institutional review board approval at all participating sites and informed consent from all participating women in compliance with HIPAA was obtained for DMIST and this retrospective analysis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for each modality were compared within each subgroup evaluated (age < 50 vs 50-64 vs >or= 65 years, dense vs nondense breasts at mammography, and pre- or perimenopausal vs postmenopausal status for the two younger age cohorts 10 new subgroups in toto) while controlling for multiple comparisons (P < .002 indicated a significant difference). All DMIST cancers were evaluated with respect to mammographic detection method (digital vs film vs both vs neither), mammographic lesion type (mass, calcifications, or other), digital machine type, mammographic and pathologic size and diagnosis, existence of prior mammographic study at time of interpretation, months since prior mammographic study, and compressed breast thickness.
Thirty-three centers enrolled 49 528 women. Breast cancer status was determined for 42,760 women, the group included in this study. Pre- or perimenopausal women younger than 50 years who had dense breasts at film mammography comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (AUCs, 0.79 vs 0.54; P = .0015). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-based sensitivity in this subgroup was 0.59 for digital and 0.27 for film mammography. AUCs were not significantly different in any of the other subgroups. For women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts, the AUC showed a nonsignificant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025).
Digital mammography performed significantly better than film for pre- and perimenopausal women younger than 50 years with dense breasts, but film tended nonsignificantly to perform better for women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts.
Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.
To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and ...positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants.
Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone.
Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval CI, 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean SE, 12.6 3.0 mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%).
Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.
Even after careful clinical and mammographic evaluation, cancer is found in the contralateral breast in up to 10% of women who have received treatment for unilateral breast cancer. We conducted a ...study to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could improve on clinical breast examination and mammography in detecting contralateral breast cancer soon after the initial diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer.
A total of 969 women with a recent diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer and no abnormalities on mammographic and clinical examination of the contralateral breast underwent breast MRI. The diagnosis of MRI-detected cancer was confirmed by means of biopsy within 12 months after study entry. The absence of breast cancer was determined by means of biopsy, the absence of positive findings on repeat imaging and clinical examination, or both at 1 year of follow-up.
MRI detected clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer in the contralateral breast in 30 of 969 women who were enrolled in the study (3.1%). The sensitivity of MRI in the contralateral breast was 91%, and the specificity was 88%. The negative predictive value of MRI was 99%. A biopsy was performed on the basis of a positive MRI finding in 121 of the 969 women (12.5%), 30 of whom had specimens that were positive for cancer (24.8%); 18 of the 30 specimens were positive for invasive cancer. The mean diameter of the invasive tumors detected was 10.9 mm. The additional number of cancers detected was not influenced by breast density, menopausal status, or the histologic features of the primary tumor.
MRI can detect cancer in the contralateral breast that is missed by mammography and clinical examination at the time of the initial breast-cancer diagnosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00058058 ClinicalTrials.gov.).
PDF
