Tag: breast imaging

A New Breast Imaging Option?

Posted on by Brian Casey

When it comes to mammography screening for women with dense breast tissue, radiologists have long looked for alternatives to established modalities like MRI and ultrasound. In a paper in Radiology: Imaging Cancer, researchers put a new twist on an older technology, positron emission mammography (PEM). 

Molecular imaging technologies like PEM have been investigated for years as potential adjuncts to conventional mammography due to the challenges X-ray imaging has with dense breast tissue. 

  • These technologies have carried different names – PEM, breast-specific gamma imaging, molecular breast imaging – but in the end all have fallen short due to the higher radiation dose they deliver compared to mammography. 

But Canadian startup Radialis has developed a new version of PEM with its Radialis PET Imager that drastically cuts radiation dose by targeting specific organs, enabling clinicians to use far lower doses of radiopharmaceuticals. The company received clearance for the system in 2022. 

  • Radialis touts its system as having high spatial resolution and a small field of view thanks to digital detectors with thousands of silicon sensors that can be placed next to the target organ; this makes it well-suited for imaging specific organs like the breast.

In the new paper, Canadian researchers tested the Radialis system as an adjunct to X-ray mammography in a pilot study of 25 women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. 

  • They wanted to see if PEM performed as well as breast MRI, but with fewer false positives and a radiation dose closer to screening mammography.  

Women underwent PEM at three FDG dose levels – 37, 74, or 185 MBq (for comparison, standard whole-body PET uses 370 MBq, a level that translates to a radiation exposure of 6.2-7.1 mSv). Researchers found …

  • PEM had sensitivity of 87% across all FDG dose levels (MRI was 100%)
    • The sample size was too small to detect statistically significant differences in sensitivity between dose levels
  • PEM had specificity of 95%
  • PEM detected 96% of known index malignant lesions (24 of 25), with the one miss occurring in a patient at the 37MBq level
  • PEM’s radiation dose ranged from 0.62-1.42 mSv, versus 0.44 mSv for a two-view screening digital mammogram

The Takeaway

The findings show that PEM with the Radialis system is a feasible adjunctive breast imaging modality at a radiation dose that’s mostly acceptable relative to X-ray-based mammography. But (as always) additional studies with larger patient populations are needed.

Breast Cancer in Younger Women Rises

Posted on by Brian Casey

Breast cancer rates have been rising in younger women – many of whom aren’t yet eligible for screening – and a new study in JAMA Network Open offers a perspective. 

Breast cancer mortality has dropped consistently over the last several decades, with a recent study in JAMA attributing the decline to the combination of screening and treatment. 

The problem is that even the most liberal breast screening guidelines recommend that average-risk women don’t start getting screened until age 40. 

  • This leaves younger women at risk of developing cancers that may present as more advanced disease.

The new study delves into this phenomenon, with researchers examining data from 218k women ages 20-49 who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2000-2019. Researchers found that cancer incidence …

  • Increased 0.79% annually across all women
  • Accelerated “dramatically” starting in 2016 
  • Rates per 100k women were similar for non-Hispanic Black and White women (71 & 70) across all age groups
  • But were sharply lower for Hispanic women (53)
  • Rates for Black women 20-29 and 30-39 were the highest among race and age cohorts (8 and 51)
  • Rates varied by hormone receptor status

The lower incidence rate for Hispanic women was an intriguing finding that researchers attributed to younger age at the birth of their first child, higher maternal parity, and longer periods of breastfeeding – all factors that may be changing with lower fertility rates.

  • The higher incidence rates for younger Black women are particularly problematic as these women also are more likely to present with advanced disease, which leads to higher mortality rates.

The Takeaway

The new study provides background to what’s become one of the more disturbing trends in public health. While incidence rates in younger women are still much lower than in older women, the rise raises the question of whether health interventions such as risk assessment and targeted screening – such as for younger Black women – are necessary.

Why Has Breast Cancer Mortality Fallen?

Posted on by Brian Casey

There’s no question that breast cancer mortality has fallen dramatically over the last several decades. The question is why. 

Proponents of cancer screening believe that early detection has played a major role by finding cancer and enabling treatment to start before it spreads. 

  • But that position is disputed by a vocal minority of skeptics who believe that better cancer treatments deserve most of the credit. 

A case in point was the Bretthauer et al study published in 2023, which claimed that there was no evidence to support screening’s beneficial impact on all-cause mortality. 

  • This despite a demonstrated long-term decline in mortality for the cancers targeted by the four major population-based screening programs: breast, cervical, prostate, and lung. 

A new study in JAMA offers clarity in the debate by placing a numeric value on the tools that have contributed to lower breast cancer mortality. Researchers led by Jennifer Caswell-Jin, MD, of Stanford University used simulation models based on CISNET data to analyze breast cancer mortality from 1975 to 2019, drawing the following conclusions:

  • Screening and treatment together produced a 58% decline in breast cancer mortality, from a death rate of 48/100,000 women to 27/100,000
  • 47% of the reduction was due to treatment of stage I to III cancer 
  • 29% was due to treatment for metastatic breast cancer 
  • 25% was associated with mammography screening 

The authors also discovered that the biggest improvement in breast cancer survival after metastatic recurrence (3.2 vs. 1.9 years) happened between 2000-2019. 

The Takeaway

The new results in Caswell-Jin et al should be seen as another victory for the screening community. In addition to setting a numeric figure for screening’s value, they also demonstrate the synergistic effect when screening and treatment work together to target breast cancer before it has a chance to spread. Efforts to separate the two are quixotic at best and dangerous to women at worst. 

AI’s Impact on Breast Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

One of the most exciting radiology use cases for AI is in breast screening. At last week’s RSNA 2023 show, a paper highlighted the technology’s potential for helping breast imagers focus on cases more likely to have cancer.

Looking for cancers on screening mammography has been compared to finding a needle in a haystack, and as such it’s considered to be one of the areas where AI can best help. 

  • One of the earliest use cases was in identifying suspicious breast lesions during radiologist interpretation (remember computer-aided detection?), but more recently researchers have focused on using AI as a triage tool, by identifying cases most likely to be normal that could be removed from the radiologist’s urgent worklist. Studies have found that 30-40% of breast screening cases could be read by AI alone or triaged to a low-suspicion list.

But what impact would AI-based breast screening triage have on radiologist metrics such as recall rate? 

  • To answer this question, researchers from NYU Langone Health prospectively tested their homegrown AI algorithm for analyzing DBT screening cases.

The algorithm was trained to identify extremely low-risk cases that could be triaged from the worklist while more complex cases where the AI was uncertain were sent to radiologists, who knew in advance the cases they were reading were more complicated. In 11.7k screening mammograms, researchers examined recall rates over two periods, one before AI triage and one after, finding: 

  • The overall recall rate went from 13% before the triage period to 15% after 
  • Recall rates for complex cases went from 17% to 20%
  • Recall rates for extremely low-risk studies went from 6% to 5%
  • There were no statistically significant differences in any of the comparisons
  • No change in median self-reported perceived difficulty of reading from the triage lists compared to non-triage list, regardless of years of experience

In future work, the NYU Langone researchers will continue their study to look at AI’s impact on cancer detection rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value, and other metrics.

The Takeaway

The NYU Langone study puts a US spin on research like MASAI from Sweden, in which AI was able to reduce radiologists’ breast screening workload by 44%. Given the differences in screening protocols between the US and Europe, it’s important to assess how AI affects workload between the regions.

Further work is needed in this ongoing study, but early results indicate that AI can triage complex cases without having an undue impact on recall rate or self-perceived difficulty in interpreting exams – a surrogate measure for burnout.

ABUS Boosts Breast Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

Automated breast ultrasound led to sharp increases in cancer detection rates and sensitivity when it was performed as a supplement to screening digital mammography in a study of Asian women. 

In Radiology, researchers from South Korea explain the shortcomings of X-ray-based mammography, which has limited sensitivity in women with dense breast tissue. Handheld ultrasound can be used as a screening supplement, but it has drawbacks of its own, such as longer exam time and operator variability. 

ABUS has been proposed as an alternative, acquiring 3D volumes of the entire breast in an automated mode that’s more structured and standardized. ABUS also provides coronal-plane images that can help differentiate malignant from benign lesions.

But most of the studies validating ABUS have been conducted on Western women, and Asian women tend to have mammographically denser breasts.

So researchers decided to test ABUS as a supplement to digital mammography with 2,301 South Korean women who were screened from 2018 to 2019. Women were first screened with digital mammography (either Hologic’s Selenia Dimensions or Siemens Healthineers’ Mammomat Revelation), then received ABUS scans with GE HealthCare’s Invenia ABUS system. 

For women with dense breasts, screening with ABUS and DM turned in better performance than DM alone in multiple categories, including:

  • Higher cancer detection rate per 1,000 screening exams (9.3 vs. 6.5)
  • Better sensitivity (90.9% vs. 63.6%)
  • Higher AUC (0.89 vs. 0.79)
  • Detection of smaller cancers, with a mean size of 1.2 cm vs. 2.3 cm

On the down side, ABUS + DM in women with dense breasts had lower specificity (86.8% vs. 94.6%), driving higher biopsy rates (3.3% vs. 1.9%) and false-positive biopsy rates (2.4% vs. 1.3%).

The Takeaway

In a time when breast cancer inequities are under the microscope, the new study provides encouraging news that imaging technology can help compensate for the shortcomings of the traditional “one size fits all” paradigm of breast screening. 

The results are also a shot in the arm for ABUS as it seeks to cement a role as a complement to X-ray-based screening mammography, although work remains to be done in improving specificity and recall rates.

Breast Screening’s New Gold Standard?

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study in Radiology on the use of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast screening makes the case that DBT has so many advantages over conventional 2D digital mammography that it should be considered the gold standard for breast screening. 

Unlike 2D mammography, DBT systems scan around the breast in an arc, acquiring multiple breast images that are combined into 3D volumes. The technique is believed to be more effective in revealing pathology that might be obscured on 2D projections.

Previous research already demonstrated the effectiveness of DBT for certain uses, but the new study is notable for its large patient population, as well as its focus on general screening rather than subgroups like women with cancer risk factors such as dense breast tissue.

Researchers led by Dr. Emily Conant of the University of Pennsylvania reviewed DBT’s performance in five large U.S. healthcare systems, with a total study population of over 1 million women. 

The advantages of DBT were notable:

  • Higher cancer detection rate: 5.5 vs. 4.5 per 1k women screened
  • Lower recall rate:  8.9% vs. 10.3%
  • Higher recall PPV: 5.9% vs. 4.3%.

On the negative side, DBT had higher biopsy rates, of 17.6 biopsies per 1,000 women versus 14.5 biopsies for 2D digital mammography. But PPV of biopsy for both techniques was largely the same. 

Researchers note that breast cancer mortality rates have fallen 41% since 1989, a development attributed to earlier diagnosis and better treatment. DBT could help accelerate this trend as it finds more cancers relative to 2D digital mammography.

The Takeaway

This study reinforces the idea that DBT is now the gold standard for breast screening. While mammography vendors have already seen high market penetration for DBT systems, the new study is likely to convince any remaining holdouts that 3D mammography is a necessary technology for any breast imaging facility. 

FDA Finally Moves on Breast Density

Posted on by Brian Casey

After a long wait, the FDA issued a final rule that adds details on breast density reporting to the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The rule takes effect in September 2024 and should go a long way toward clarifying the issue of breast density for patients. 

Breast tissue density is a risk factor for cancer, and dense breast tissue can make it more difficult for radiologists to identify tumors on conventional x-ray mammography. This shortcoming is often not communicated to women who receive “normal” mammograms, but later find out that a cancer was missed.

Prodded by a strong patient advocacy movement, individual states have been passing laws requiring women to be notified of their density status, creating a patchwork of regulation across the U.S. 

The FDA in 2018 agreed to set a national standard by rolling breast density reporting into an update of the MQSA. But the long wait has frustrated many in the breast density advocacy movement.

There are several major components to the new rule, which: 

  • Requires breast imaging facilities to provide patients with a summary of the mammography report written in lay terms that identifies whether patients have dense or non-dense breast tissue.
  • Instructs facilities to include a section in the mammography report explaining the significance of breast density. 
  • Establishes four categories for reporting breast tissue density in the mammography report. 
  • Sets the specific language to be used for reporting density. 

The new rules provide much-needed national consistency in breast density reporting, and will replace the patchwork of state regulation that has developed over the years. Developers of breast density software may also benefit from the new federal rules, as they simplify the number of regulations that need to be tracked. 

The Takeaway

Better late than never. While the FDA should have signed off on this years ago, now that the rules are issued the breast imaging community can move ahead with integrating them into clinical practice. The new rules should also help density reporting software developers by setting a national standard rather than a patchwork of state regulation. 

Multimodal AI Virtual Breast Biopsies

Posted on by Jake Fishman

Radiology Journal detailed a multimodal AI solution that can classify breast lesion subtypes using mammograms, potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving biopsy interpretations. 

Researchers from Israel and IBM/Merative first pretrained a deep learning model with 26k digital mammograms to classify images (malignant, benign, or normal), and used these pretraining weights to develop a lesion subtype classification model trained with mammograms and clinical data. Finally, they trained a pair of lesion classification models using digital mammograms linked to biopsy results from 2,120 women in Israel and 1,642 women in the US. 

When the Israel AI model was tested against mammograms from 441 Israeli women it…

  • Predicted malignancy with an 0.88 AUC
  • Classified ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive carcinomas, or benign lesions with 0.76, 0.85, and 0.82 AUCs
  • Correctly interpreted 98.7% of malignant mammographic examinations and 74.6% of invasive carcinomas (matching three radiologists)
  • Would have prevented 13% of unnecessary biopsies and missed 1.3% of malignancies (at 99% sensitivity)

When the US AI model was tested against mammograms from 344 US women it…

  • Predicted malignancy with a lower 0.80 AUC
  • Classified ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive carcinomas, or benign lesions with lower 0.74, 0.83, and 0.72 AUCs 
  • Correctly interpreted 96.8% of malignant mammographic examinations and 63% of invasive carcinomas (matching three radiologists)

The authors attributed the US model’s lower accuracy to its smaller training dataset, and noted that the two models’ also had worse performance when tested against data from the other country (US model w/Israel data, Israel model w/ US data) or when classifying rare lesion types. 

However, they were still bullish about this approach with enough training data, and noted the future potential to add other imaging modalities and genetic information to further enhance multimodal breast cancer assessments.

The Takeaway 

We’ve historically relied on biopsy results to classify breast lesion subtypes, and that will remain true for quite a while. However, this study shows that multimodal-trained AI can extract far more information from mammograms, while potentially reducing unnecessary biopsies and improving the accuracy of the biopsies that are performed.

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!