Patel, Bhavika

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 Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technique utilizing iodinated contrast to highlight areas of neovascularity. The role of CEM in patients with breast implants has not yet been characterized. We report our clinical experience of CEM in patients with breast augmentation surgery to better understand the potential diagnostic utility and limitations of CEM in the setting of breast implants. Materials and Methods: A HIPPA compliant, IRB exempt single-institution review of prospective CEM cases who had “breast implants” in their report between 01/2015 and 03/2020. Medical records were reviewed to supplement database information. Results: Forty-six patients were included with a mean age of 52 years (range 33-72). Clinical indications included: high risk research screen 3 (6%), diagnostic evaluation for abnormal imaging 24 (52%), further evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancer 12 (26%) or assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response 7 (15%). Thirty patients had malignant lesions. Histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (90%), invasive lobular carcinoma (7%), and ductal carcinoma in situ (3%). CEM identified the index cancer and extent of disease in 28/30 (93%) of malignant cases. In two patients (7%), the malignant lesion was not included in the field-of-view due to its location. One of these lesions was a far medial mass within the breast which was detected by ultrasound alone. The other false negative CEM was a palpable axillary mass negative on both mammogram (MG) and MRI but seen by ultrasound. Twenty-three (50%) underwent additional breast MRI of which 20 had an already diagnosed cancer. the findings on CEM were concordant with MR imaging for the index lesion in 19/20 (95%) cases (kappa=0.86; p <0.001). Six additional lesions were found by CEM and confirmed by MRI. Of these lesions, 33% were found to be malignant and changed the surgical procedure. Four were only seen on CEM (no MRI comparison was available) and 75% were found to be malignant. One was only seen on MRI and was benign. One additional lesion was only seen as an asymmetry on MG without CEM or MRI correlate. This was benign on both the biopsy and surgical pathology. Conclusions: CEM appears to be a valuable breast imaging modality for diagnostic evaluations and surgical staging, including patients with breast implants. Due to technical artifacts and positioning limitations for posterior lesions, we recommend performing CEM with implant displaced views. Breast centers that use CEM, should be aware of field of view as a potential limitation when evaluating extent of disease in patients with breast augmentation. Citation Format: Molly Carnahan, Barbara Pockaj, Victor Pizzitola, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Patricia Cronin, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Brenda Ernst, Bhavika Patel. Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-23.

Abstract Objective and Rationale: To investigate the utility of screening Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single institution, IRB approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic women 35 years of age or older who were deemed at elevated risk of breast cancer, defined as IBIS v.8.0 lifetime risk of breast cancer score >15% or a prior personal history of breast cancer. Enrollment started in January 2019 and is on-going. An interim data analysis was performed. Women were invited to undergo supplemental CEM screening within 180 days of negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) conventional 2D/3D screening mammography (MG). Patients with prior screening MBI, ultrasound or MR imaging within 12 months were excluded from study participation. Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CEM, along with their 95% confidence intervals, as well as the biologic profiles of MG-occult, CEM detected cancers. Results: A total of 351 women were enrolled in this prospective study over a 20-month period. To date, we have 1 year follow up on 106 cases with negative follow-up MG. Average age of the participants was 56 years ± 9.44 (standard deviation); 11 patients had screening 2D MG, 333 had combined 3-D and 2-D screening MG; 309 dense and 37 non-dense breasts based on ACR BI-RADS categories. CEM depicted 8 additional breast cancers (table 1), which were otherwise MG occult, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 patients, 95% CI (9.9, 44.3). 1 false negative cancer on CEM imaging which was further detected on MR imaging only. Biopsy revealed 16 benign changes (16/28=57%), 4 high-risk lesions (4/28=14%), and 8 breast cancers (8/28=29%) (table 2). CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.942, 95% CI (0.917, 0.967), high NPV 0.997, 95% CI (0.991, 1.000) and moderate PPV (0.286, 95% CI (0.118, 0.453) and sensitivity (0.889, 95% CI (0.684, 1.000)). Size of CEM detected cancers ranged from 7 to 57 mm. Conclusion: This pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 during prevalence round of CEM screening in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. These initial results are comparable to results reported for high-risk surveillance MR imaging. Larger, multi-institutional high-risk CEM trials are needed for those patients who are not otherwise undergoing regular supplemental surveillance MR imaging. Citation Format: Bhavika K. Patel, Victor Pizzitola, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Marina Giurescu, Gina Mazza, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Juliana Kling, Denise Millstine, Ernst Brenda, Patricia Cronin, Heidi Apsey, Jennifer Palmieri, Barbara Pockaj, Michele Halyard. Supplemental contrast enhanced mammography screening of women with elevated risk of breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-41.

Abstract Purpose: Among a Latina population in a low resource healthcare setting, to test the effectiveness of bilingual (Spanish/English) written and interpersonal educational interventions in increasing breast density (BD) awareness, knowledge, and conversations with healthcare providers, which are goals of BD notification mandates. Procedures: This randomized trial was conducted at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in an urban community of the Southwest U.S. Women ages 40- 74 presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (mailed letter with mammogram and BD results), enhanced care (letter plus BD educational brochure), or interpersonal care (letter, brochure, and telephonic promotora education). The baseline survey was administered in person at enrollment prior to the mammogram. Follow-up surveys were by phone or mail after the mammography results letter was mailed and promotora delivery was complete (median days from baseline to follow-up survey = 97 days). Differences between groups at baseline or follow-up were assessed with chi-square tests. Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated data was used to assess differences by time (baseline to follow-up) within group, including a time-by-group interaction. Results: Between October 2016 and October 2019, 1377 women were enrolled. Of these, 1085 (79%) self-identified Latinas completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Median age was 47 years. Most (91%) reported speaking mostly Spanish, and 69.1% had less than a high school degree. At baseline, only 20.9% reported having heard of BD, and only 30.5% of those knew their personal BD category. At follow-up, women in the interpersonal group were more likely to report seeing their BD results in the notification letter compared to the usual care and enhanced groups (70.4% vs. 52.9% and 54.3%, p < 0.001) and to report having spoken with a provider about their BD (27.3% vs. 14.2% and 15.7%, p < 0.001). They also reported higher mean understanding of BD (7.7 on a 0-10 scale vs. 6.3 and 6.6, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences on these outcomes between the usual care and enhanced groups. All groups saw significant improvement in correct responses from baseline to follow-up for questions on the ability of BD to mask tumors on a mammogram and BD as a breast cancer risk factor (p < 0.001 all groups), but the degree of improvement in masking knowledge was significantly higher for the interpersonal vs usual care group [OR for a correct response in follow-up vs baseline: 6.4 (interpersonal) vs 3.7 (usual care), p=0.01]. Conclusion: Among a Latina population in a FQHC, telephonic promotora education was more effective than written notification alone or a mailed brochure on key goals of notification mandates. Adding a brochure does not appear to be more effective than sending a letter alone on key outcomes, but the interpersonal nature of promotora education may prompt attention to mailed information and provide an opportunity for questions. Citation Format: Jennifer L. Ridgeway, Sarah M. Jenkins, Deborah J. Rhodes, Bhavika K. Patel, Edna Ramos, Bijan Borah, Karthik Ghosh, Vera J. Suman, Aaron Norman, Davinder Singh, Celine M. Vachon. Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized clinical trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-245.

Abstract Objective: Breast density notification laws aim to increase women’s awareness and knowledge about breast density (BD). This study’s aim was to compare BD knowledge and awareness in two Hispanic populations: a safety-net clinic serving Latina population in Maricopa County, Arizona (AZ) and a national sample of Hispanic women participating in an online research panel. Materials/Methods: Women ages 40-74 were recruited at the AZ clinic from 2016-2019 at a screening mammography appointment as part of a larger clinical trial (AZ cohort). Surveys were completed in person (English or Spanish) at enrollment to assess awareness of BD, understanding of BD risk, and mammography history. The same questions were asked in a nationally representative online panel survey conducted in 2017. All data from the national survey were weighted to adjust for probability of selection into the panel and post-stratified to match known U.S. Hispanic population distributions (NS cohort). Univariate comparisons between the clinic and the national panel were performed using Rao-Scott chi-square tests. Associations with awareness and correct knowledge were examined with multivariable logistic regression. All summaries and analyses are weighted, and were performed with SAS version 9.4 SURVEY procedures (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Results: The analysis included 1332 Hispanic women from the AZ clinic and 152 Hispanic women who completed the national survey. The AZ cohort was younger (mean age: 48.5 vs 52.8), had less education (less than high school: 68.7% vs 34.8% less than high school), more likely to prefer Spanish (92.3% vs 53.1%) and less likely to have had a prior mammogram as compared NS cohort (82.8% vs 90.4%) (all p≤ 0.03). NS cohort was more likely to have awareness of BD (32.6% vs 20.7%); correct understanding of the masking effect of BD, (67.8% vs 37.0%,) and breast cancer risk (72.2% vs 32.6%,), compared to the AZ cohort (all p < 0.004). When adjusted for differences in education, age, language, and screening mammography history, BD awareness was similar between the two cohorts (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 0.95, p=0.83). Awareness was positively associated with more education, previous mammogram history, and English language. However, differences in BD knowledge remained (ORadj=2.8 [p=0.03] and 7.2 [P<0.001] for knowledge of masking and risk, respectively). Conclusions: There were significant differences in BD awareness and knowledge between a nationally-representative sample of Latinas and Latinas in a low-resource setting. The differences in BD awareness, but not knowledge, could be explained by education, screening history and preferred language. These findings suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to raising BD awareness and knowledge will not work. To ensure equitable dissemination of health care to Latina women undergoing screening mammography, future work should be aimed at developing effective tools and resources for educating Spanish-speaking women about BD and risk-based screening. Citation Format: Jillian Leaver, Bhavika K. Patel, Jennifer L. Ridgeway, Sarah Jenkins, Vera Suman, Deborah J. Rhodes, Aaron Norman, Karthik Ghosh, Bijan Borah, Carrie Hruska, Edna Ramos, Davinder Singh, Matt Jewett, Carmen Radecki-Breitkof, Celine Vachon. Breast density knowledge and awareness among Latinas in a low-resource setting: A comparison nationally-representative sample of Latinas [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-238.

Abstract Background: Accurate circulating biomarkers for detecting residual disease can help guide therapy decisions, particularly in early-stage cancer patients. However, currently available methods lack the sensitivity required to confidently assess the presence of residual disease in patients with low tumor burden. To address this need, we have developed TARDIS (Targeted Digital Sequencing), a personalized, multiplexed amplicon sequencing method capable of tracking as many as 100 or more mutations simultaneously. Methods: We obtained tumor biopsies and longitudinal plasma samples from patients with early-stage breast cancer, glioblastoma, and pancreatic cancer. Each tumor biopsy was analyzed whole-exome sequencing. Founder mutations were selected, accounting for copy number alterations (analyzed using sequenza) and a consensus allele fraction approach that combined pyclone and custom in-house methods. Patient-specific TARDIS primers were designed to detect these mutations in plasma cfDNA. Error suppression in TARDIS was achieved using a combination of unique molecular identifiers and fragment sizes to group sequencing reads into read families. Results: In 33 patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy, we targeted between 3 and 116 (mean 30) mutations per patient and analyzed between 1 and 4 longitudinal plasma samples using TARDIS. Prior to treatment, we detected ctDNA in 100% patients with Stage I-III breast cancer (n=32, 95% CI= 89%-100%). We detected tumor-specific mutations in 100% of baseline breast cancer plasma samples. After completion of neoadjuvant therapy and before surgery, ctDNA levels were significantly lower in patients with pathologic complete response (pathCR, no evidence of disease at surgery) compared to patients with residual disease (median tumor fractions 0.003% and 0.017%, respectively, p=0.0058, AUC=0.83). Conclusions: TARDIS enables highly sensitive detection of ctDNA in patients with nonmetastatic cancers. Analysis of longitudinal plasma samples using TARDIS holds promise for personalizing the extent of treatment in patients with curable disease. Multiple clinical validation studies across cancer types are ongoing to define quantitative thresholds for changes in ctDNA levels that could improve clinical decision making. Citation Format: Bradon R. McDonald, Tania Contente-Cuomo, Stephen-John Sammut, Michelle D. Stephens, Ahuva Odenheimer-Bergman, Brenda Ernst, Nieves Perdigones, Suet-Feung Chin, Maria Farooq, Rosa Mejia, Patricia A. Cronin, Karen S. Anderson, Heidi E. Kosiorek, Donald W. Northfelt, Ann E. McCullough, Bhavika K. Patel, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Thomas P. Slavin, Carlos Caldas, Barbara A. Pockaj, Muhammed Murtaza. Personalized monitoring of treatment response using Targeted Digital Sequencing of circulating tumor DNA [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Liquid Biopsies; Jan 13-16, 2020; Miami, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(11_Suppl):Abstract nr A51.

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.