Patel, Bhavika K

Abstract Purpose:Quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in normal risk and high risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association between breast biomechanical properties and cancer risk.Methods: Patients with normal risk or high risk of breast cancer underent 3.0 T breast MR imaging and elastography. Breast parenchymal enhancement (BPE), density (from most recent mammogram), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were recorded. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were compared across risk groups (normal versus high). A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate whether the MRE parameters (separately for stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity) predicted risk status after controlling for clinical factors.Results: 50 normal risk and 86 high risk patients were included. Risk groups were similar on age, density, and menopausal status. Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high risk patients (N = 55) compared to normal risk patients (N = 34; all p < 0.001). Stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR=4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for elasticity and viscosity.Conclusion: A structurally-based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. Tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify high risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance and/or risk reduction measures.

Abstract Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is gaining rapid traction following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for diagnostic indications. Contrast-enhanced mammography is an alternative form of mammography that uses a dual-energy technique for image acquisition after the intravenous administration of iodinated contrast material. The resulting exam includes a dual set of images, one that appears similar to a routine 2D mammogram and one that highlights areas of contrast uptake. Studies have shown improved sensitivity compared to mammography and similar performance to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. As radiology groups incorporate CEM into clinical practice they must first select the indications for which CEM will be used. Many practices initially use CEM as an MRI alternative or in cases recommended for biopsy. Practices should then define the CEM clinical workflow and patient selection to include ordering, scheduling, contrast safety screening, and managing imaging on the day of the exam. The main equipment requirements for performing CEM include CEM-capable mammography equipment, a power injector for contrast administration, and imaging-viewing capability. The main staffing requirements include personnel to place the intravenous line, perform the CEM exam, and interpret the CEM. To safely and appropriately perform CEM, staff must be trained in their respective roles and to manage potential contrast-related events. Lastly, informing referring colleagues and patients of CEM through marketing campaigns is helpful for successful implementation.

Abstract Cognitive bias is an unavoidable aspect of human decision-making. In breast radiology, these biases contribute to missed or erroneous diagnoses and mistaken judgments. This article introduces breast radiologists to eight cognitive biases commonly encountered in breast radiology: anchoring, availability, commission, confirmation, gambler’s fallacy, omission, satisfaction of search, and outcome. In addition to illustrative cases, this article offers suggestions for radiologists to better recognize and counteract these biases at the individual level and at the organizational level.

AbstractIn this paper we provide an overview of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and a review of the published literature in order to provide a picture of the current state of the evidence on the performance of CEM. Clinical research was fairly sparse following the demonstration of the technique in research subjects about 18 years ago, but the number of publications rapidly increased following commercialization 9 years ago, and even more so in the last 5 years. Initial studies compared CEM with mammography, and clearly showed that CEM could detect cancers not visible on mammography. More recent studies have primarily focused on comparing the performance of CEM with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected cohorts. These studies have almost uniformly shown CEM and MRI to have similar sensitivities, with sensitivity and accuracy showing more variability from study to study. With increasing clinical use, a large number of retrospective reviews of CEM have appeared, showing utility of CEM in the diagnostic clinical setting. Most recently, a small number of papers have been published looking at CEM for high-risk and dense breast screening, two potentially large applications of the technique, showing it to outperform mammography in both populations. CEM has clearly been shown to have clinical utility, but more prospective studies, including screening studies, are needed to further evaluate its performance, especially in comparison with MRI.

A robust personalized ctDNA test, TARDIS, achieves high accuracy for residual disease after completion of neoadjuvant therapy.