Dataset Information

Detection of Contralateral Breast Cancer Using Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison with Combined Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the screening performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI and combined mammography and ultrasound (US) in detecting clinically occult contralateral breast cancer in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Materials and methods

Between January 2017 and July 2018, 1148 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 53.2 ± 10.8 years) with unilateral breast cancer and no clinical abnormalities in the contralateral breast underwent 3T MRI, digital mammography, and radiologist-performed whole-breast US. In this retrospective study, three radiologists independently and blindly reviewed all DW MR images (b = 1000 s/mm² and apparent diffusion coefficient map) of the contralateral breast and assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category. For combined mammography and US evaluation, prospectively assessed results were used. Using histopathology or 1-year follow-up as the reference standard, cancer detection rate and the patient percentage with cancers detected among all women recommended for tissue diagnosis (positive predictive value; PPV₂) were compared.

Results

Of the 30 cases of clinically occult contralateral cancers (13 invasive and 17 ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]), DW MRI detected 23 (76.7%) cases (11 invasive and 12 DCIS), whereas combined mammography and US detected 12 (40.0%, five invasive and seven DCIS) cases. All cancers detected by combined mammography and US, except two DCIS cases, were detected by DW MRI. The cancer detection rate of DW MRI (2.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3%, 3.0%) was higher than that of combined mammography and US (1.0%; 95% CI: 0.5%, 1.8%; p = 0.009). DW MRI showed higher PPV₂ (42.1%; 95% CI: 26.3%, 59.2%) than combined mammography and US (18.5%; 95% CI: 9.9%, 30.0%; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

In women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, DW MRI detected significantly more contralateral breast cancers with fewer biopsy recommendations than combined mammography and US.

SUBMITTER: Ha SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8154781 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextScreening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.ObjectiveTo 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.Design, setting, and participantsFrom 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.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic 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.ResultsForty 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%).ConclusionsAdding 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.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Project description:ImportanceBetween 5% and 10% of breast cancer cases are associated with an inherited germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (GPV) in a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BCSG), which could alter local and systemic therapy recommendations. Traditional genetic testing criteria misses a proportion of these cases.ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence and clinicopathological associations of GPVs in 2 groups of BCSGs among an ethnically diverse cohort of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study, conducted at 3 Montreal hospitals between September 2019 and April 2022, offered universal genetic counseling and testing to all women with a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. Women were offered an obligatory primary panel of BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (B1B2P2) and an optional secondary panel of 14 additional BCSGs. Eligible participants were women 18 years of age or older who received a diagnosis of a first primary invasive breast cancer not more than 6 months before the time of referral to the study. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to June 2024.ResultsOf 1017 referred patients, 805 were eligible and offered genetic counseling and testing, and 729 of those 805 (90.6%) consented to be tested. The median age at breast cancer diagnosis was 53 years (range, 23-91 years), and 65.4% were White and of European ancestry. Fifty-four GPVs were identified in 53 patients (7.3%), including 39 patients (5.3%) with B1B2P2 and 15 patients (2.1%) with 6 of the 14 secondary panel BCSGs (ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, RAD51D, and STK11). On multivariable analysis, clinical factors independently associated with B1B2P2-positive status included being younger than 40 years of age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.83; 95% CI, 2.22-20.90), triple-negative breast cancer (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.20-8.43), high grade disease (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70), and family history of ovarian cancer (OR, 9.75; 95% CI, 2.65-35.85). Of 39 B1B2P2-positive patients, 13 (33.3%) were eligible for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional universal genetic testing study of women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer, the prevalence of GPVs was 7.3%, with 5.3% of patients testing positive for B1B2P2. Among B1B2P2-women women, one-third were eligible for PARP inhibitors.