Objectives To perform a survey among all European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) radiologist members to gather representative data regarding the clinical use of breast DWI. Methods An online questionnaire was developed by two board-certified radiologists, reviewed by the EUSOBI board and committees, and finally distributed among EUSOBI active and associated (not based in Europe) radiologist members. The questionnaire included 20 questions pertaining to technical preferences (acquisition time, magnet strength, breast coils, number of b values), clinical indications, imaging evaluation, and reporting. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Chisquare test of independence, and Fisher's exact test. Results Of 1411 EUSOBI radiologist members, 275/1411 (19.5%) responded. Most (222/275, 81%) reported using DWI as part of their routine protocol. Common indications for DWI include lesion characterization (using an ADC threshold of 1.2-1.3 × 10 −3 mm 2 /s) and prediction of response to chemotherapy. Members most commonly acquire two separate b values (114/217, 53%), with b value = 800 s/mm 2 being the preferred value for appraisal among those acquiring more than two b values (71/171, 42%). Most did not use synthetic b values (169/217, 78%). While most mention hindered diffusion in the MRI report (161/213, 76%), only 142/217 (57%) report ADC values. ConclusionThe utilization of DWI in clinical practice among EUSOBI radiologists who responded to the survey is generally in line with international recommendations, with the main application being the differentiation of benign and malignant enhancing lesions, treatment response assessment, and prediction of response to chemotherapy. Report integration of qualitative and quantitative DWI data is not uniform. Key Points• Clinical performance of breast DWI is in good agreement with the current recommendations of the EUSOBI International Breast DWI working group. • Breast DWI applications in clinical practice include the differentiation of benign and malignant enhancing, treatment response assessment, and prediction of response to chemotherapy. • Report integration of DWI results is not uniform.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess whether multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI-based radiomics analysis is able to predict pathological complete response in breast cancer patients and hence potentially enhance pretherapeutic patient stratification. Methods: A total of 73 female patients (mean age 49 years; range 27–77 years) with newly diagnosed, therapy-naive breast cancer underwent simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI and were included in this retrospective study. All PET/MRI datasets were imported to dedicated software (ITK-SNAP v. 3.6.0) for lesion annotation using a semi-automated method. Pretreatment biopsy specimens were used to determine tumor histology, tumor and nuclear grades, and immunohistochemical status. Histopathological results from surgical tumor specimens were used as the reference standard to distinguish between complete pathological response (pCR) and noncomplete pathological response. An elastic net was employed to select the most important radiomic features prior to model development. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated for each model. Results: The best results in terms of AUCs and NPV for predicting complete pathological response in the entire cohort were obtained by the combination of all MR sequences and PET (0.8 and 79.5%, respectively), and no significant differences from the other models were observed. In further subgroup analyses, combining all MR and PET data, the best AUC (0.94) for predicting complete pathologic response was obtained in the HR+/HER2− group. No difference between results with/without the inclusion of PET characteristics was observed in the TN/HER2+ group, each leading to an AUC of 0.92 for all MR and all MR + PET datasets. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/MRI enables comprehensive high-quality radiomics analysis for the prediction of pCR in breast cancer patients, especially in those with HR+/HER2− receptor status.

This multicenter retrospective study compared the performance of radiomics analysis coupled with machine learning (ML) with that of radiologists for the classification of breast tumors. A total of 93 consecutive women (mean age: 49 ± 12 years) with 104 histopathologically verified enhancing lesions (mean size: 22.8 ± 15.1 mm), classified as suspicious on multiparametric breast MRIs were included. Two experienced breast radiologists assessed all of the lesions, assigning a Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) suspicion category, providing a diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) score based on lesion signal intensity, and determining the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Ten predictive models for breast lesion discrimination were generated using radiomic features extracted from the multiparametric MRI. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and the accuracy were compared using McNemar’s test. Multiparametric radiomics with DWI score and BI-RADS (accuracy = 88.5%; AUC = 0.93) and multiparametric radiomics with ADC values and BI-RADS (accuracy= 88.5%; AUC = 0.96) models showed significant improvements in diagnostic accuracy compared to the multiparametric radiomics (DWI + DCE data) model (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively), but performed similarly compared to the multiparametric assessment by radiologists (accuracy = 85.6%; AUC = 0.03; p = 0.39). In conclusion, radiomics analysis coupled with the ML of multiparametric MRI could assist in breast lesion discrimination, especially for less experienced readers of breast MRIs.

Background Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is assessed on breast MRI reports as mandated by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS) but is prone to inter and intrareader variation. Semiautomated and fully automated BPE assessment tools have been developed but none has surpassed radiologist BPE designations. Purpose To develop a deep learning model for automated BPE classification and to compare its performance with current standard‐of‐care radiology report BPE designations. Study Type Retrospective. Population Consecutive high‐risk patients (i.e. >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer) who underwent contrast‐enhanced screening breast MRI from October 2013 to January 2019. The study included 5224 breast MRIs, divided into 3998 training, 444 validation, and 782 testing exams. On radiology reports, 1286 exams were categorized as high BPE (i.e., marked or moderate) and 3938 as low BPE (i.e., mild or minimal). Field Strength/Sequence A 1.5 T or 3 T system; one precontrast and three postcontrast phases of fat‐saturated T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging. Assessment Breast MRIs were used to develop two deep learning models (Slab artificial intelligence (AI); maximum intensity projection [MIP] AI) for BPE categorization using radiology report BPE labels. Models were tested on a heldout test sets using radiology report BPE and three‐reader averaged consensus as the reference standards. Statistical Tests Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Associations between high BPE and BI‐RADS assessments were evaluated using McNemar's chi‐square test (α* = 0.025). Results The Slab AI model significantly outperformed the MIP AI model across the full test set (area under the curve of 0.84 vs. 0.79) using the radiology report reference standard. Using three‐reader consensus BPE labels reference standard, our AI model significantly outperformed radiology report BPE labels. Finally, the AI model was significantly more likely than the radiologist to assign “high BPE” to suspicious breast MRIs and significantly less likely than the radiologist to assign “high BPE” to negative breast MRIs. Data Conclusion Fully automated BPE assessments for breast MRIs could be more accurate than BPE assessments from radiology reports. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 3

The recent introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) as a promising imaging modality for breast cancer assessment has prompted fervent research activity on its clinical applications. The current knowledge regarding the possible clinical applications of hybrid PET/MRI is constantly evolving, thanks to the development and clinical availability of hybrid scanners, the development of new PET tracers and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. In this state‐of‐the‐art review on the use of hybrid breast PET/MRI, the most promising advanced MRI techniques (diffusion‐weighted imaging, dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and chemical exchange saturation transfer) are discussed. Current and experimental PET tracers (18F‐FDG, 18F‐NaF, choline, 18F‐FES, 18F‐FES, 89Zr‐trastuzumab, choline derivatives, 18F‐FLT, and 68Ga‐FAPI‐46) are described in order to provide an overview on their molecular mechanisms of action and corresponding clinical applications. New perspectives represented by the use of radiomics and AI techniques are discussed. Furthermore, the current strengths and limitations of hybrid PET/MRI in the real world are highlighted. Evidence Level 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2

Purpose: To investigate whether a machine learning (ML)-based radiomics model applied to 18F-FDG PET/MRI is effective in molecular subtyping of breast cancer (BC) and specifically in discriminating triple negative (TN) from other molecular subtypes of BC. Methods: Eighty-six patients with 98 BC lesions (Luminal A = 10, Luminal B = 51, HER2+ = 12, TN = 25) were included and underwent simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI of the breast. A 3D segmentation of BC lesion was performed on T2w, DCE, DWI and PET images. Quantitative diffusion and metabolic parameters were calculated and radiomics features extracted. Data were selected using the LASSO regression and used by a fine gaussian support vector machine (SVM) classifier with a 5-fold cross validation for identification of TNBC lesions. Results: Eight radiomics models were built based on different combinations of quantitative parameters and/or radiomic features. The best performance (AUROC 0.887, accuracy 82.8%, sensitivity 79.7%, specificity 86%, PPV 85.3%, NPV 80.8%) was found for the model combining first order, neighborhood gray level dependence matrix and size zone matrix-based radiomics features extracted from ADC and PET images. Conclusion: A ML-based radiomics model applied to 18F-FDG PET/MRI is able to non-invasively discriminate TNBC lesions from other BC molecular subtypes with high accuracy. In a future perspective, a “virtual biopsy” might be performed with radiomics signatures.

No abstract

No abstract