A V Chudgar1, E F Conant1, S P Weinstein1, B M Keller1, M Synnestvedt2, P Yamartino2, E S McDonald3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street/1 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283, USA. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street/1 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4283, USA. Electronic address: elizabeth.mcdonald@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining the extent of disease in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer detected on combination digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital screening mammography (DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 24,563 DBT-screened patients and 10,751 DM-screened patients was performed. Two hundred and thirty-five DBT patients underwent subsequent MRI examinations; 82 to determine extent of disease after newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eighty-three DM patients underwent subsequent MRI examinations; 23 to determine extent of disease. MRI examinations performed to assess disease extent were considered true positives if additional disease was discovered in the contralateral breast or >2 cm away from the index malignancy. Differences in cancer subtypes and MRI outcomes between the DM and DBT cohorts were compared using chi-squared tests and post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted tests for equal proportions. RESULTS: No differences in cancer subtype findings were observed between the two cohorts; however, MRI outcomes were found to differ between the DBT and DM cohorts (p=0.024). Specifically, the DBT cohort had significantly (p=0.013) fewer true-positive findings (7/82, 8.5%) than did the DM cohort (7/23; 30%), whereas the false-positive rate was similar between the cohorts (not statistically significant). When stratifying by breast density, this difference in true-positive rates was primarily observed when evaluating women with non-dense breasts (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In both the DM- and DBT-screened populations with new cancer diagnoses, MRI is able to detect additional cancer; however, in those patients who have DBT screen-detected cancers the positive impact of preoperative MRI is diminished, particularly in those women with non-dense breasts.
AIM: To compare the utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in determining the extent of disease in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer detected on combination digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital screening mammography (DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 24,563 DBT-screened patients and 10,751 DM-screened patients was performed. Two hundred and thirty-five DBT patients underwent subsequent MRI examinations; 82 to determine extent of disease after newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eighty-three DMpatients underwent subsequent MRI examinations; 23 to determine extent of disease. MRI examinations performed to assess disease extent were considered true positives if additional disease was discovered in the contralateral breast or >2 cm away from the index malignancy. Differences in cancer subtypes and MRI outcomes between the DM and DBT cohorts were compared using chi-squared tests and post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted tests for equal proportions. RESULTS: No differences in cancer subtype findings were observed between the two cohorts; however, MRI outcomes were found to differ between the DBT and DM cohorts (p=0.024). Specifically, the DBT cohort had significantly (p=0.013) fewer true-positive findings (7/82, 8.5%) than did the DM cohort (7/23; 30%), whereas the false-positive rate was similar between the cohorts (not statistically significant). When stratifying by breast density, this difference in true-positive rates was primarily observed when evaluating women with non-dense breasts (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In both the DM- and DBT-screened populations with new cancer diagnoses, MRI is able to detect additional cancer; however, in those patients who have DBT screen-detected cancers the positive impact of preoperative MRI is diminished, particularly in those women with non-dense breasts.
Authors: Stephen L Rose; Andra L Tidwell; Louis J Bujnoch; Anne C Kushwaha; Amy S Nordmann; Russell Sexton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Robin Turner; Petra Macaskill; Lindsay W Turnbull; David R McCready; Todd M Tuttle; Neha Vapiwala; Lawrence J Solin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: L Corke; L Luzhna; K Willemsma; C Illmann; M Mcdermott; C Wilson; C Simmons; N LeVasseur Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 4.624