Varner, Jacob

e12749 Background: Breast cancer (BC) survivors are at higher risk for recurrence or new primary disease and often require complex surveillance imaging. Use of contrast enhanced surveillance imaging modalities with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has increased in recent years. This study evaluates characteristics of those BC survivors who receive contrast enhanced imaging and whether the addition of contrast enhanced imaging affects biopsy outcomes in BC survivors. Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review identified female BC survivors who underwent breast surgery and subsequent surveillance imaging at a single academic center between 2016 and 2025. Surveillance episodes were categorized as mammography alone versus mammography with addition of CEM and/or MRI. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to compare patient and tumor characteristics associated with enhanced imaging modality use. Similarly rates of biopsy and cancer were evaluated with enhanced imaging use. Results: A total of 4,050 surveillance imaging episodes in 861 patients were identified and 54 resulted in biopsy-proven malignancy. Mammography alone was performed in 3,459 episodes, while enhanced imaging with CEM or MRI was used in 591 (14.6%) episodes. Use of CEM or MRI for surveillance imaging increased over time. In 2016, surveillance imaging consisted predominantly of mammography alone (93.3%) with 6.6% incorporating MRI or CEM. By 2025, mammography only surveillance decreased to 78.4% while use of MRI or CEM increased to 21.6%. Use of contrast enhanced imaging was associated with higher incidence rate ratios (IRR) for dense breast tissue [IRR 2.33; 95% CI 1.92, 2.82), p < 0.001] and less frequently used among patients aged 65–79 years [IRR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49, 0.74; p < 0.0001] and > = 80 years of age [IRR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24, 0.66; p < 0.001]. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (IRR 3.09, p = 0.0061), and immunotherapy use (IRR 2.56, p = 0.0006) also were associated with increased use of CEM/MRI enhanced imaging. Biopsies were performed in 146 (4.2%) mammography alone episodes and 55 (9.3%) enhanced imaging episodes [IRR 2.20; 95% CI 1.63, 2.96; p < 0.001]. Surveillance with mammography yielded malignant biopsy results in 39 (1.1%) episodes, compared with 15 (2.5%) episodes using enhanced imaging [IRR 2.25; 95% CI 1.25, 4.06; p = 0.007). Conclusions: In breast cancer surveillance at our institution, the addition of contrast enhanced imaging modalities were utilized in a minority of surveillance episodes but did increase over time and were higher in patients with dense breasts. CEM or MRI usage demonstrated higher biopsy rates and increased malignancy detection compared with mammography alone, but the incidence of a positive biopsy was low. These findings suggest and are in keeping with 2023 ACR guidelines that enhanced imaging may improve cancer detection in select breast cancer survivors.

Abstract Objective To compare the pathology outcomes of image-guided breast biopsies across a multistate health care enterprise by the method of detection (MOD), including the positive predictive value (PPV3) and histological types. Methods Biopsies from October 31, 2017, to July 6, 2023, across 18 imaging sites in 4 states were extracted. Radiologists prospectively assigned MODs, including symptomatic presentations (self-examination, clinical examination) and imaging modalities (mammogram, tomosynthesis, US, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammogram, molecular breast imaging, other imaging). For each MOD, the rates of malignancy and cancer subtypes were calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Results In 26 932 biopsies on 22 582 patients (mean age 57.6 years ± 14.2 [SD]; 22 416 women), 6068 (81.1%) cancers were detected by screening, and 1144 (15.3%) were detected by symptoms. Symptomatic presentation MODs had a higher PPV3 (43.0% vs 25.6%; P &lt; .001), larger cancer lesion sizes (x̄ = 27.5 mm vs x̄ = 17.8 mm; P &lt; 001), and a higher association with invasive carcinoma (96.7% vs 76.8%; P &lt;.001) compared with screening imaging-based MODs. Methods of detection with higher PPV3s also tended to have higher rates of invasive carcinoma (Spearman’s ρ = 0.83). Conclusion Compared with breast cancers detected after symptomatic presentations, those identified via image-based screening were smaller and less often invasive, confirming the value of screening in early detection. Positive predictive value and the rate of invasive carcinoma varied in parallel across MODs.

This cohort study examines trends in patient access of radiology imaging results after implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act in different clinical settings.