Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Local Staging of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer.
Breast cancer
Contrast-enhanced mammography
Local staging
Screen-detected breast cancer
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Jul 2024
24 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
26
02
2024
accepted:
02
07
2024
medline:
26
7
2024
pubmed:
26
7
2024
entrez:
24
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
BreastScreen Australia, the population mammographic screening program for breast cancer, uses two-view digital screening mammography ± ultrasound followed by percutaneous biopsy to detect breast cancer. Secondary breast imaging for further local staging, not performed at BreastScreen, may identify additional clinically significant breast lesions. Staging options include further mammography, bilateral ultrasound, and/or contrast-based imaging (CBI) [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)]. CBI for local staging of screen-detected cancer was introduced at an academic hospital breast service in Melbourne, VIC, Australia. We report findings for otherwise occult disease and resulting treatment changes. Patients staged using CEM between November 2018 and April 2022 were identified from hospital records. Data were extracted from radiology, pathology, and breast unit databases. CEM-detected abnormalities were documented as true positive (TP) for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or otherwise false positive (FP). The impact on surgical decisions was assessed. Of 202 patients aged 44-84 years, 60 (30%) had 74 additional findings [34 (46%) TP, 40 (54%) FP]. These were malignant in 29/202 (14%) patients (79% invasive cancers, 21% DCIS). CEM resulted in surgical changes in 43/202 (21%) patients: wider resection (24/43), conversion to mastectomy (6/43), contralateral breast surgery (6/43), additional ipsilateral excision (5/43), and bracketing (2/43). Additional findings were more common for patients with larger index lesions and for invasive cancer, but there was no significant variation by age, breast density, or index lesion grade. CEM for local staging of screen-detected breast cancers identified occult malignancy in 14% of patients. CEM improves local staging and may facilitate appropriate management of screen-detected breast cancers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
BreastScreen Australia, the population mammographic screening program for breast cancer, uses two-view digital screening mammography ± ultrasound followed by percutaneous biopsy to detect breast cancer. Secondary breast imaging for further local staging, not performed at BreastScreen, may identify additional clinically significant breast lesions. Staging options include further mammography, bilateral ultrasound, and/or contrast-based imaging (CBI) [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)]. CBI for local staging of screen-detected cancer was introduced at an academic hospital breast service in Melbourne, VIC, Australia. We report findings for otherwise occult disease and resulting treatment changes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Patients staged using CEM between November 2018 and April 2022 were identified from hospital records. Data were extracted from radiology, pathology, and breast unit databases. CEM-detected abnormalities were documented as true positive (TP) for invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or otherwise false positive (FP). The impact on surgical decisions was assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 202 patients aged 44-84 years, 60 (30%) had 74 additional findings [34 (46%) TP, 40 (54%) FP]. These were malignant in 29/202 (14%) patients (79% invasive cancers, 21% DCIS). CEM resulted in surgical changes in 43/202 (21%) patients: wider resection (24/43), conversion to mastectomy (6/43), contralateral breast surgery (6/43), additional ipsilateral excision (5/43), and bracketing (2/43). Additional findings were more common for patients with larger index lesions and for invasive cancer, but there was no significant variation by age, breast density, or index lesion grade.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CEM for local staging of screen-detected breast cancers identified occult malignancy in 14% of patients. CEM improves local staging and may facilitate appropriate management of screen-detected breast cancers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39048901
doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15848-y
pii: 10.1245/s10434-024-15848-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615–34.
pubmed: 26501537
doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183
Elder K, Nickson C, Mann GB. Treatment intensity differences after early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) diagnosis depending on participation in a screening program. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(9):2563–72.
pubmed: 29717421
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6469-7
Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, Kavanagh AM. Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1479–88.
pubmed: 22956730
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0468
Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205–40.
pubmed: 23744281
pmcid: 3693450
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.177
Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, et al. NCCN Guidelines® insights: breast cancer, version 4.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023;21(6):594–608.
pubmed: 37308117
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0031
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248.
pubmed: 18474876
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.
pubmed: 20159292
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62070-5
Miller BT, Abbott AM, Tuttle TM. The influence of preoperative MRI on breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:536–40.
pubmed: 21751044
doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1932-8
Kuhl CK, Lehman C, Bedrosian I. Imaging in locoregional management of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(20):2351–61.
pubmed: 32442068
pmcid: 7343437
doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03257
Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, et al. Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs. digital breast Tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA. 2020;323:746–56.
pubmed: 32096852
pmcid: 7276668
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0572
Mukherjee SD, Hodgson N, Lovrics PJ, et al. A retrospective study evaluating the impact of preoperative breast MRI on surgical decision-making in young patients (≤50 years) with invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer: Basic Clin Res. 2016;2016(10):S38432.
doi: 10.4137/BCBCR.S38432
Landercasper J, Bailey L, Berry TS, et al. Measures of appropriateness and value for breast surgeons and their patients: the american society of breast surgeons choosing Wisely (®) initiative. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3112–8.
pubmed: 27334216
pmcid: 4999471
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5327-8
American Society of Breast Surgeons. 2017. Available at: https://www.breastsurgeons.org/docs/statements/Consensus-Guideline-on-Diagnostic-and-Screening-Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging-of-the-Breast.pdf . Accessed 5 Jan 2024.
Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(1):26–38.
pubmed: 21847541
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2238-8
Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(33):5640–9.
pubmed: 19805685
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5756
Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET—randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):879–86.
pubmed: 21195605
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.035
Gonzalez V, Sandelin K, Karlsson A, et al. Preoperative MRI of the breast (POMB) influences primary treatment in breast cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. World J Surg. 2014;38(7):1685–93.
pubmed: 24817517
doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2605-0
Mota BS, Reis YN, de Barros N, et al. Effects of preoperative magnetic resonance image on survival rates and surgical planning in breast cancer conservative surgery: randomized controlled trial (BREAST-MRI trial). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:447–54.
pubmed: 36786946
pmcid: 10036439
doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-06884-5
Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.
pubmed: 24696228
Lobbes MBI, Heuts EM, Moossdorff M, van Nijnatten TJA. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: The pro CEM perspective. Eur J Radiol. 2021;142:109883.
pubmed: 34358810
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109883
Girometti R, Linda A, Conte P, et al. Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiol Med. 2021;126(11):1407–14.
pubmed: 34302599
doi: 10.1007/s11547-021-01400-5
Cozzi A, Magni V, Zanardo M, Schiaffino S, Sardanelli F. Contrast-enhanced mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance. Radiology. 2022;302(3):568–81.
pubmed: 34904875
doi: 10.1148/radiol.211412
Neeter LMFH, Robbe MMQ, van Nijnatten TJA, et al. Comparing the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer. 2023;14(1):174–82.
pubmed: 36605487
pmcid: 9809339
doi: 10.7150/jca.79747
Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A, Delaloge S, Mazouni C, Mathieu MC. Added value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in postscreening assessment. Breast J. 2016;22(5):520–8.
pubmed: 27345656
doi: 10.1111/tbj.12627
Ali-Mucheru M, Pockaj B, Patel B, Pizzitola V, Wasif N, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:649–55.
pubmed: 27638679
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7
Montrognon F, Clatot F, Berghian A, et al. Impact of preoperative staging with contrast-enhanced mammography for localized breast cancer management. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1134):20210765.
pubmed: 35195454
pmcid: 10996426
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210765
DeMartini WB, Liu F, Peacock S, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Lehman CD. Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: impact on diagnostic performance. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):W373–80.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.6272
Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology. 2019;292(3):520–36.
pubmed: 31361209
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182947
Morris EA, Comstock CE, Lee CH. ACR BI-RADS® Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: American College of Radiology, ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: 2013.
Lee C, Phillips J, Sung J, Lewin J, Newell M. Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Supplement to ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. American College of Radiology; 2022.
Highnam R, Brady SM, Yaffe MJ, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J. Robust breast composition measurement—VolparaTM. In: J Martí, A Oliver, J Freixenet, R Martí, editors. Digital mammography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer; 2010.
Ciatto S, Bernardi D, Calabrese M, et al. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Breast. 2012;21:503–6.
pubmed: 22285387
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.005
Lee CS, Moy L, Hughes D, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of screening mammography: a national mammography database (NMD) study. Radiology. 2021;300(3):518–28.
pubmed: 34156300
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204379
Schell AM, Rosenkranz K, Lewis PJ. Role of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(5):1438–44.
pubmed: 19380574
doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1551
Smith H, Chetlen AL, Schetter S, Mack J, Watts M, Zhu JJ. PPV(3) of suspicious breast MRI findings. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(12):1553–62.
pubmed: 25262952
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.013
Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264(1):51–8.
pubmed: 22589320
pmcid: 3380411
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12110619
Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Silbergeld JJ, et al. High cancer yield and positive predictive value: outcomes at a center routinely using preoperative breast MRI for staging. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):W93–9.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4804
Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED. Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;108(4):djv367.
pubmed: 26712110
pmcid: 5943835
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv367
Kim AH, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Park BW, Moon HJ. Positive predictive value of additional synchronous breast lesions in whole-breast ultrasonography at the diagnosis of breast cancer: clinical and imaging factors. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(3):170–7.
pubmed: 25038806
pmcid: 4104951
doi: 10.14366/usg.14004
Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(4):921–7.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511149
Sardanelli F, Trimboli RM, Houssami N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA). Eur Radiol. 2022;32(3):1611–23.
pubmed: 34643778
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08240-x
Eisen A, Fletcher GG, Fienberg S, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2024;75(1):118–35.
pubmed: 37593787
doi: 10.1177/08465371231184769
Mann GB, Skandarajah AR, Zdenkowski N, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy omission in selected patients with early breast cancer following preoperative breast MRI (PROSPECT): primary results of a prospective two-arm study. Lancet. 2024;403:261–70.
pubmed: 38065194
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02476-5
Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:392–401.
pubmed: 24395846
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.7515
Boughey JC, Rosenkranz KM, Ballman KV, et al. Local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer: results from ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(17):3184–93.
pubmed: 36977292
pmcid: 10256355
doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02553
Hussein H, Abbas E, Keshavarzi S, et al. Supplemental breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts and negative mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2023;306(3):e221785.
pubmed: 36719288
doi: 10.1148/radiol.221785
Joergensen LE, Gunnarsdottir KA, Lanng C, Moeller S, Rasmussen BB. Multifocality as a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients registered in Danish Breast Cooperative Group (DBCG) 1996–2001. Breast. 2008;17:587–91.
pubmed: 18691887
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2008.06.004
Neri A, Marrelli D, Megha T, et al. Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases. BMC Surg. 2015;14(1):1.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-15-1
Jochelson MS, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-enhanced mammography: state of the art. Radiology. 2021;299(1):36–48.
pubmed: 33650905
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021201948
Covington MF. Contrast-enhanced mammography implementation, performance, and use for supplemental breast cancer screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 2021;59(1):113–28.
pubmed: 33222993
doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.08.006
Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59(3):300–5.
pubmed: 25900704
doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12296
Gelardi F, Ragaini EM, Sollini M, Bernardi D, Chiti A. Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(8):1890.
pubmed: 36010240
pmcid: 9406751
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081890