-
International Journal of Surgery Case... May 2024Lipoma is the most common benign tumor of adipose tissue. Giant lipoma of the breast is defined as lesions larger than 10 cm and weighing more than 1000 g. A breast...
INTRODUCTION
Lipoma is the most common benign tumor of adipose tissue. Giant lipoma of the breast is defined as lesions larger than 10 cm and weighing more than 1000 g. A breast lipoma rapidly enlarging and fast growing; can be managed as a malignant tumor. It is crucial to make a correct diagnosis to prevent an overtreatment.
CASE PRESENTATION
A 48-year-old patient presented with a painless, huge rapidly growing tumor in her right breast. Physical examination and imaging studies was suggestive of benign lipomatous breast tumor: A breast lipoma, a fibroadenolipoma or adenolipoma, an angiolipoma, or a breast fatty hamartoma. The patient underwent surgical excision of the mass, and histological examination confirmed the diagnosis of a giant breast lipoma.
DISCUSSION
Giant breast lipoma is a rare benign tumor that develops in the breast tissue. They can mimic various breast conditions, even neoplastic conditions. Giant breast lipomas are often treated with surgical excision to avoid recurrence.
CONCLUSION
Giant breast lipoma rapidly growing can pose a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to various benign or malignant pathologies. Unnecessary invasive investigations can be avoided with better understanding and improved imaging-based diagnosis of giant breast lipoma.
PubMed: 38815443
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2024.109787 -
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 2024The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the...
BACKGROUND/AIM
The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEM's using histopathological findings, and compare lesion size measurements obtained from both methods with pathological size.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This prospective study included 120 lesions, of which 70 were malignant, in 104 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within a week. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR and CEM images in separate sessions, using the BI-RADS classification system. Additionally, the maximum sizes of lesion were measured. Diagnostic accuracy parameters and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The correlation between the maximum diameter of breast lesions observed in MRI, CEM, and pathology was analyzed.
RESULTS
The overall diagnostic values for MRI were as follows: sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) 77.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.8%, and accuracy 81.7%. Correspondingly, for CEM, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.14%, 81.67%, 60%, 77.27%, and 93.75%, respectively. The ROC analysis of CEM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.907 for observer 1 and 0.857 for observer 2, whereas MRI exhibited an AUC of 0.910 for observer 1 and 0.914 for observer 2. Notably, CEM showed the highest correlation with pathological lesion size (r = 0.660 for observer 1 and r = 0.693 for observer 2, p < 0.001 for both).
CONCLUSION
CEM can be used with high sensitivity and similar diagnostic performance comparable to MRI for diagnosing breast cancer. CEM proves to be a successful diagnostic method for precisely determining tumor size.
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mammography; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Contrast Media; Adult; Aged; Sensitivity and Specificity; ROC Curve; Breast
PubMed: 38812642
DOI: 10.55730/1300-0144.5786 -
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi May 2024【Purpose】 Accurate control of X-ray units and dosimeters and analysis of the uncertainties associated with the accurate measurement of radiation doses are essential...
【Purpose】 Accurate control of X-ray units and dosimeters and analysis of the uncertainties associated with the accurate measurement of radiation doses are essential for the effective establishment and application of diagnostic reference levels. In this study, the uncertainty of the average glandular dose (AGD) in the quality control of mammography equipment was evaluated in detail, and recommendations were provided to improve the accuracy and safety of radiological practice. 【Methods】 In the uncertainty analysis of the AGD, the relative standard uncertainties in the measurements of the half-value layer, the incident air kerma, and the conversion factor were considered and finally expressed as expanded uncertainties, the intervals of which were clearly defined. 【Results】 From the AGD measurements using two types of dosimeters, it was found that the primary sources of uncertainty are the uncertainty of the calibration factors of the dosimeters and the uncertainty of the conversion factors.【Conclusion】 To reduce uncertainty, the use of regularly calibrated dosimeters is effective and reliable. Two types of dosimeters are commonly used; the results of this study may serve as a reference value for the uncertainty of AGD in quality control in medical facilities.
PubMed: 38811193
DOI: 10.6009/jjrt.2024-1448 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases May 2024Breast conservation surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy has become a gold standard in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, significantly reducing the risk of...
BACKGROUND
Breast conservation surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy has become a gold standard in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, significantly reducing the risk of tumor recurrence. However, this treatment is associated with adverse effects, including the rare but aggressive radiation-induced angiosarcoma (RIAS). Despite its rarity and nonspecific initial presentation, RIAS presents a challenging diagnosis, emphasizing the importance of imaging techniques for early detection and accurate diagnosis.
CASE SUMMARY
We present a case of a 48-year-old post-menopausal woman who developed skin ecchymosis on the right breast seven years after receiving BCS and adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer. Initial mammography and ultrasound were inconclusive, showing post-treatment changes but failing to identify the underlying angiosarcoma. Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed diffuse skin thickening and nodularity with distinctive enhancement kinetics, leading to the diagnosis of RIAS. This case highlights the crucial role of MRI in diagnosing and determining the extent of RIAS, facilitating timely and appropriate surgical intervention.
CONCLUSION
Breast MRI is crucial for detecting RIAS, especially when mammography and ultrasound are inconclusive.
PubMed: 38808350
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i13.2237 -
Breast Cancer Research : BCR May 2024Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast...
Optimising the diagnostic accuracy of First post-contrAst SubtracTed breast MRI (FAST MRI) through interpretation-training: a multicentre e-learning study, mapping the learning curve of NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers using an enriched dataset.
BACKGROUND
Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast cancer. This study aimed to optimise diagnostic accuracy through the adaptation of interpretation-training.
METHODS
A FAST MRI interpretation-training programme (short presentations and guided hands-on workstation teaching) was adapted to provide additional training during the assessment task (interpretation of an enriched dataset of 125 FAST MRI scans) by giving readers feedback about the true outcome of each scan immediately after each scan was interpreted (formative assessment). Reader interaction with the FAST MRI scans used developed software (RiViewer) that recorded reader opinions and reading times for each scan. The training programme was additionally adapted for remote e-learning delivery.
STUDY DESIGN
Prospective, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset by multiple readers.
RESULTS
43 mammogram readers completed the training, 22 who interpreted breast MRI in their clinical role (Group 1) and 21 who did not (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 81-84%; 1994/2408), specificity 94% (95%CI 93-94%; 7806/8338), readers' agreement with the true outcome kappa = 0.75 (95%CI 0.74-0.77) and diagnostic odds ratio = 70.67 (95%CI 61.59-81.09). Group 1 readers showed similar sensitivity (84%) to Group 2 (82% p = 0.14), but slightly higher specificity (94% v. 93%, p = 0.001). Concordance with the ground truth increased significantly with the number of FAST MRI scans read through the formative assessment task (p = 0.002) but by differing amounts depending on whether or not a reader had previously attended FAST MRI training (interaction p = 0.02). Concordance with the ground truth was significantly associated with reading batch size (p = 0.02), tending to worsen when more than 50 scans were read per batch. Group 1 took a median of 56 seconds (range 8-47,466) to interpret each FAST MRI scan compared with 78 (14-22,830, p < 0.0001) for Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS
Provision of immediate feedback to mammogram readers during the assessment test set reading task increased specificity for FAST MRI interpretation and achieved high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal reading-batch size for FAST MRI was 50 reads per batch. Trial registration (25/09/2019): ISRCTN16624917.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mammography; Learning Curve; Middle Aged; Early Detection of Cancer; Prospective Studies; Aged; Sensitivity and Specificity; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Breast
PubMed: 38807211
DOI: 10.1186/s13058-024-01846-1 -
Systematic Reviews May 2024Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a...
BACKGROUND
Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.
METHODS
We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.
FINDINGS
Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Canada; Patient Preference; Mammography; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Preventive Health Services; Advisory Committees; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38807191
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02539-8 -
BMC Medical Imaging May 2024Automated Breast Ultrasound (AB US) has shown good application value and prospects in breast disease screening and diagnosis. The aim of the study was to explore the...
BACKGROUND
Automated Breast Ultrasound (AB US) has shown good application value and prospects in breast disease screening and diagnosis. The aim of the study was to explore the ability of AB US to detect and diagnose mammographically Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 microcalcifications.
METHODS
575 pathologically confirmed mammographically BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications from January 2017 to June 2021 were included. All patients also completed AB US examinations. Based on the final pathological results, analyzed and summarized the AB US image features, and compared the evaluation results with mammography, to explore the detection and diagnostic ability of AB US for these suspicious microcalcifications.
RESULTS
250 were finally confirmed as malignant and 325 were benign. Mammographic findings including microcalcifications morphology (61/80 with amorphous, coarse heterogeneous and fine pleomorphic, 13/14 with fine-linear or branching), calcification distribution (189/346 with grouped, 40/67 with linear and segmental), associated features (70/96 with asymmetric shadow), higher BI-RADS category with 4B (88/120) and 4 C (73/38) showed higher incidence in malignant lesions, and were the independent factors associated with malignant microcalcifications. 477 (477/575, 83.0%) microcalcifications were detected by AB US, including 223 malignant and 254 benign, with a significantly higher detection rate for malignant lesions (x = 12.20, P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed microcalcifications with architectural distortion (odds ratio [OR] = 0.30, P = 0.014), with amorphous, coarse heterogeneous and fine pleomorphic morphology (OR = 3.15, P = 0.037), grouped (OR = 1.90, P = 0.017), liner and segmental distribution (OR = 8.93, P = 0.004) were the independent factors which could affect the detectability of AB US for microcalcifications. In AB US, malignant calcification was more frequent in a mass (104/154) or intraductal (20/32), and with ductal changes (30/41) or architectural distortion (58/68), especially with the both (12/12). BI-RADS category results also showed that AB US had higher sensitivity to malignant calcification than mammography (64.8% vs. 46.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
AB US has good detectability for mammographically BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications, especially for malignant lesions. Malignant calcification is more common in a mass and intraductal in AB US, and tend to associated with architectural distortion or duct changes. Also, AB US has higher sensitivity than mammography to malignant microcalcification, which is expected to become an effective supplementary examination method for breast microcalcifications, especially in dense breasts.
Topics: Humans; Calcinosis; Female; Retrospective Studies; Middle Aged; Ultrasonography, Mammary; Breast Neoplasms; Adult; Aged; Mammography; Aged, 80 and over
PubMed: 38807064
DOI: 10.1186/s12880-024-01287-4 -
NPJ Precision Oncology May 2024Interval breast cancers (IBCs) are cancers diagnosed between screening episodes. Understanding the biological differences between IBCs and screen-detected breast-cancers...
Interval breast cancers (IBCs) are cancers diagnosed between screening episodes. Understanding the biological differences between IBCs and screen-detected breast-cancers (SDBCs) has the potential to improve mammographic screening and patient management. We analysed and compared the genomic landscape of 288 IBCs and 473 SDBCs by whole genome sequencing of paired tumour-normal patient samples collected as part of the UK 100,000 Genomes Project. Compared to SDBCs, IBCs were more likely to be lobular, higher grade, and triple negative. A more aggressive clinical phenotype was reflected in IBCs displaying features of genomic instability including a higher mutation rate and number of chromosomal structural abnormalities, defective homologous recombination and TP53 mutations. We did not however, find evidence to indicate that IBCs are associated with a significantly different immune response. While IBCs do not represent a unique molecular class of invasive breast cancer they exhibit a more aggressive phenotype, which is likely to be a consequence of the timing of tumour initiation. This information is relevant both with respect to treatment as well as informing the screening interval for mammography.
PubMed: 38806682
DOI: 10.1038/s41698-024-00618-6 -
BMJ Open May 2024Radiologist shortages threaten the sustainability of breast cancer screening programmes. Artificial intelligence (AI) products that can interpret mammograms could...
Protocol for evaluating the fitness for purpose of an artificial intelligence product for radiology reporting in the BreastScreen New South Wales breast cancer screening programme.
INTRODUCTION
Radiologist shortages threaten the sustainability of breast cancer screening programmes. Artificial intelligence (AI) products that can interpret mammograms could mitigate this risk. While previous studies have suggested this technology has accuracy comparable to radiologists most have been limited by using 'enriched' datasets and/or not considering the interaction between the algorithm and human readers. This study will address these limitations by comparing the accuracy of a workflow using AI alongside radiologists on a large consecutive cohort of examinations from a breast cancer screening programme. The study will combine the strengths of a large retrospective design with the benefit of prospective data collection. It will test this technology without risk to screening programme participants nor the need to wait for follow-up data. With a sample of 2 years of consecutive screening examinations, it is likely the largest test of this technology to date. The study will help determine whether this technology can safely be introduced into the BreastScreen New South Wales (NSW) population-based screening programme to address radiology workforce risks without compromising cancer detection rates or increasing false-positive recalls.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
A retrospective, consecutive cohort of digital mammography screens from 658 207 examinations from BreastScreen NSW will be reinterpreted by the Lunit Insight MMG AI product. The cohort includes 4383 screen-detected and 1171 interval cancers. The results will be compared with radiologist single reading and the AI results will also be used to replace the second reader in a double-reading model. New adjudication reading will be performed where the AI disagrees with the first reader. Recall rates and cancer detection rates of combined AI-radiologist reading will be compared with the rates obtained at the time of screening.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This study has ethical approval from the NSW Health Population Health Services Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH02397). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. The findings of this evaluation will be provided to programme managers, governance bodies and other stakeholders in Australian breast cancer screening programmes.
Topics: Humans; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Mammography; Artificial Intelligence; New South Wales; Early Detection of Cancer; Retrospective Studies; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Research Design
PubMed: 38806433
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082350 -
Annals of Family Medicine 2024The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly interrupted breast cancer screening, an essential preventive service in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the pandemic's impact on...
PURPOSE
The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly interrupted breast cancer screening, an essential preventive service in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the pandemic's impact on overall and follow-up breast cancer screening using real-world health records data.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of women eligible for breast cancer screening through the study period from January 1, 2017 to February 28, 2022 using TriNetX Research Network data. We examined the temporal trend of monthly screening volume throughout the study period and compared the rate of adherence to follow-up screening within 24 months after the previous screening when the follow-up screening was due in the pre-COVID period vs the COVID period. To account for multiple screenings in the longitudinal data, we applied a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations with adjustment for individual-level covariates.
RESULTS
Among 1,186,669 screening-eligible women, the monthly screening volume temporarily decreased by 80.6% from February to April 2020 and then rebounded to close to pre-COVID levels by June 2020. Yet, the follow-up screening rate decreased from 78.9% (95% CI, 78.8%-79.0%) in the pre-COVID period to 77.7% (95% CI, 77.6%-77.8%) in the COVID period. Multivariate regression analysis also showed a lower adherence to follow-up screening during the COVID period (odds ratio = 0.86; 0.86-0.87) and a greater pandemic impact among women aged 65 years and older and women of non-Hispanic "other" race (Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander).
CONCLUSIONS
The COVID-19 pandemic had a transient negative effect on breast cancer screening overall and a prolonged negative effect on follow-up screening. It also exacerbated gaps in adherence to follow-up screening, especially among certain vulnerable groups, requiring innovative strategies to address potential health disparities in primary care.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Middle Aged; United States; Retrospective Studies; Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Adult; Mammography; Pandemics; Mass Screening
PubMed: 38806260
DOI: 10.1370/afm.3098