Advertisement

Performance of screening MRI in high risk patients at initial versus subsequent screen

      Highlights

      • Initial screening MRIs were subject to more abnormal interpretations and biopsies compared to subsequent MRIs.
      • However, sensitivity and cancer detection rates were significantly higher for initial screening MRIs.
      • The higher rate of abnormal interpretations at initial screen are likely justified by the higher cancer detection rate.
      • Patients may be counseled on the higher likelihood of recall from an initial MRI balanced with the higher cancer detection.
      • Findings also support the importance of having prior MRI images for comparison to decrease false positives.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To compare the characteristics, outcomes, and performance metrics in women undergoing initial breast MRI screening versus subsequent screening.

      Methods

      A retrospective database search identified screening MRIs performed at an academic practice from 2013 to 2015. MRIs were divided into two groups: (1) initial screens and (2) subsequent screens (interpreted with at least one prior MRI for comparison). Benignity was confirmed with pathology or >1-year follow-up. Malignancy was confirmed by pathology. Performance metrics were calculated. Comparisons were made using Binomial and Fisher's exact tests.

      Results

      We observed a higher rate of abnormal interpretations (52% vs. 19%; p < 0.001) and rate of biopsy (49% vs. 15%; p < 0.001) in the initial versus subsequent screen group. The positive predictive value of biopsy was slightly lower at initial versus subsequent screen (17% vs. 19%, p = 0.99). However, the cancer detection rate was higher at initial than at subsequent screen (85 vs. 29/1000, p = 0.08). Sensitivity was higher at initial (100%) versus subsequent (88%) screen. However, the specificity at initial screen was low (55%) compared to subsequent screen (83%).

      Conclusions

      The higher rate of abnormal interpretations in the initial versus subsequent screen group in part reflects a prevalence screening. Although we observed more abnormal interpretations in the initial screen, this was likely justified by the significantly higher cancer detection. This evidence may be used to counsel patients and referring providers on the expected higher likelihood of recall from an initial screening MRI balanced with higher detection of malignancies. Findings also highlight the importance of having comparison MRIs to decrease false positives.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Monticciolo D.L.
        • Newell M.S.
        • Moy L.
        • Niell B.
        • Monsees B.
        • Sickles E.A.
        Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 408-414
        • Peters N.H.
        • Borel Rinkes I.H.
        • Zuithoff N.P.
        • Mali W.P.
        • Moons K.G.
        • Peeters P.H.
        Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions.
        Radiology. 2008; 246: 116-124
        • Evans D.G.
        • Kesavan N.
        • Lim Y.
        • Gadde S.
        • Hurley E.
        • Massat N.J.
        • et al.
        MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 145: 663-672
        • Saslow D.
        • Boetes C.
        • Burke W.
        • Harms S.
        • Leach M.O.
        • Lehman C.D.
        • et al.
        American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75-89
        • Sickles E.
        • D’Orsi C.J.
        ACR BI-RADS® follow-up and outcome monitoring.
        in: ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Lee J.M.
        • Ichikawa L.
        • Valencia E.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • Wernli K.
        • Buist D.S.M.
        • et al.
        Performance benchmarks for screening breast MR imaging in community practice.
        Radiology. 2017; 285: 44-52
        • Strigel R.M.
        • Rollenhagen J.
        • Burnside E.S.
        • Elezaby M.
        • Fowler A.M.
        • Kelcz F.
        • et al.
        Screening breast MRI outcomes in routine clinical practice: comparison to BI-RADS benchmarks.
        Acad Radiol. 2017; 24: 411-417
        • Niell B.L.
        • Gavenonis S.C.
        • Motazedi T.
        • Chubiz J.C.
        • Halpern E.P.
        • Rafferty E.A.
        • et al.
        Auditing a breast MRI practice: performance measures for screening and diagnostic breast MRI.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 883-889
        • Kuhl C.K.
        • Strobel K.
        • Bieling H.
        • Leutner C.
        • Schild H.H.
        • Schrading S.
        Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer.
        Radiology. 2017; 283: 361-370
        • Healy N.A.
        • O’Keeffe S.A.
        Determination of recall rates for assessment in high-risk women undergoing annual surveillance breast MRI.
        Clin Radiol. 2016; 71: 1143-1147
        • Warren R.M.
        • Pointon L.
        • Caines R.
        • Hayes C.
        • Thompson D.
        • Leach M.O.
        • et al.
        What is the recall rate of breast MRI when used for screening asymptomatic women at high risk?.
        Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 20: 557-565
        • Lehman C.D.
        • Lee J.M.
        • DeMartini W.B.
        • Hippe D.S.
        • Rendi M.H.
        • Kalish G.
        • et al.
        Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108
        • Abramovici G.
        • Mainiero M.B.
        Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
        Radiology. 2011; 259: 85-91
        • Burke K.S.E.
        • Edmonds C.
        • Mercaldo S.F.
        • Lehman C.D.
        • Sippo D.A.
        The effect of prior comparison MRI on interpretive performance of screening breast MRI.
        J. Breast Imaging. 2020; 2: 36-42
        • Frankel S.D.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Curpen B.N.
        • Sollitto R.A.
        • Ominsky S.H.
        • Galvin H.B.
        Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164: 1107-1109
        • Morris C.C.
        • Lee C.H.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging.
        in: ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • I. Expert Panel on Breast
        • Mainiero M.B.
        • Moy L.
        • Baron P.
        • Didwania A.D.
        • diFlorio R.M.
        • et al.
        ACR appropriateness criteria® breast cancer screening.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: S383-S390
        • Lee C.I.
        • Ichikawa L.
        • Rochelle M.C.
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • Sprague B.L.
        • et al.
        Breast MRI BI-RADS assessments and abnormal interpretation rates by clinical indication in US community practices.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1370-1376
        • I. Expert Panel on Breast
        • Moy L.
        • Heller S.L.
        • Bailey L.
        • D’Orsi C.
        • DiFlorio R.M.
        • et al.
        ACR appropriateness criteria® palpable breast masses.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: S203-S224
        • Sickles E.A.
        Quality assurance. How to audit your own mammography practice.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 1992; 30: 265-275
        • Burnside E.S.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Sohlich R.E.
        • Dee K.E.
        Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179: 1173-1177