VABB may not be considered a therapeutic procedure, even in the case of complete removal of microcalcifications. However, a complete removal of microcalcifications may result in low rates of underestimation of malignancy and may consequently increase the diagnostic accuracy of the diagnostic procedure.

Radiomics is an emerging translational field of medicine based on the extraction of high-dimensional data from radiological images, with the purpose to reach reliable models to be applied into clinical practice for the purposes of diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of disease response to treatment. We aim to provide the basic information on radiomics to radiologists and clinicians who are focused on breast cancer care, encouraging cooperation with scientists to mine data for a better application in clinical practice. We investigate the workflow and clinical application of radiomics in breast cancer care, as well as the outlook and challenges based on recent studies. Currently, radiomics has the potential ability to distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions, to predict breast cancer’s molecular subtypes, the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the lymph node metastases. Even though radiomics has been used in tumor diagnosis and prognosis, it is still in the research phase and some challenges need to be faced to obtain a clinical translation. In this review, we discuss the current limitations and promises of radiomics for improvement in further research.

No abstract

Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%–91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%–93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%–88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.

Purpose To estimate the performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for breast cancer detection. Methods Consecutive breast magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed from January to September 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Examinations performed before/after neoadjuvant therapy, lacking DWI sequences or reference standard were excluded; breasts after mastectomy were also excluded. Two experienced breast radiologists (R1, R2) independently evaluated only DWI. Final pathology or > 1-year follow-up served as reference standard. Mc Nemar, χ 2 , and κ statistics were applied. Results Of 1,131 examinations, 672 (59.4%) lacked DWI sequence, 41 (3.6%) had no reference standard, 30 (2.7%) were performed before/after neoadjuvant therapy, and 10 (0.9%) had undergone bilateral mastectomy. Thus, 378 women aged 49 ± 11 years (mean ± standard deviation) were included, 51 (13%) with unilateral mastectomy, totaling 705 breasts. Perbreast cancer prevalence was 96/705 (13.6%). Per-breast sensitivity was 83/96 (87%, 95% confidence interval 78-93%) for both R1 and R2, 89/96 (93%, 86-97%) for double reading (DR) (p = 0.031); per-lesion DR sensitivity for cancers ≤ 10 mm was 22/31 (71%, 52-86%). Per-breast specificity was 562/609 (93%, 90-94%) for R1, 538/609 (88%, 86-91%) for R2, and 526/609 (86%¸ 83-89%) for DR (p < 0.001). Inter-observer agreement was substantial (κ = 0.736). Acquisition time varied from 3:00 to 6:22 min:s. Per-patient median interpretation time was 46 s (R1) and 51 s (R2). Conclusions DR DWI showed a 93% sensitivity and 88% specificity, with 71% sensitivity for cancers ≤ 10 mm, pointing out a potential for DWI as stand-alone screening method.

Purpose: In order to evaluate the use of un-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting breast cancer, we evaluated the accuracy and the agreement of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) through the inter-reader reproducibility between expert and non-expert readers. Material and Methods: Consecutive breast MRI performed in a single centre were retrospectively evaluated by four radiologists with different levels of experience. The per-breast standard of reference was the histological diagnosis from needle biopsy or surgical excision, or at least one-year negative follow-up on imaging. The agreement across readers (by inter-reader reproducibility) was examined for each breast examined using Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa (κ) statistics. The Wald test was used to test the difference in inter-reader agreement between expert and non-expert readers. Results: Of 1131 examinations, according to our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 382 women were included (49.5 ± 12 years old), 40 of them with unilateral mastectomy, totaling 724 breasts. Overall inter-reader reproducibility was substantial (κ = 0.74) for expert readers and poor (κ = 0.37) for non- expert readers. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.60) and showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers (p = 0.003). Conclusions: DWI showed substantial inter-reader reproducibility among expert-level readers. Pairwise comparison showed superior agreement of the expert readers over the non-expert readers, with the expert readers having higher inter-reader reproducibility than the non-expert readers. These findings open new perspectives for prospective studies investigating the actual role of DWI as a stand-alone method for un-enhanced breast MRI.

Recent technological advances in the field of artificial intelligence hold promise in addressing medical challenges in breast cancer care, such as early diagnosis, cancer subtype determination and molecular profiling, prediction of lymph node metastases, and prognostication of treatment response and probability of recurrence. Radiomics is a quantitative approach to medical imaging, which aims to enhance the existing data available to clinicians by means of advanced mathematical analysis using artificial intelligence. Various published studies from different fields in imaging have highlighted the potential of radiomics to enhance clinical decision making. In this review, we describe the evolution of AI in breast imaging and its frontiers, focusing on handcrafted and deep learning radiomics. We present a typical workflow of a radiomics analysis and a practical “how-to” guide. Finally, we summarize the methodology and implementation of radiomics in breast cancer, based on the most recent scientific literature to help researchers and clinicians gain fundamental knowledge of this emerging technology. Alongside this, we discuss the current limitations of radiomics and challenges of integration into clinical practice with conceptual consistency, data curation, technical reproducibility, adequate accuracy, and clinical translation. The incorporation of radiomics with clinical, histopathological, and genomic information will enable physicians to move forward to a higher level of personalized management of patients with breast cancer.

No abstract