Objectives:To review the imaging findings of a series of cases of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast, a rare and aggressive form of breast cancer with variable imaging features.Materials and methods:Retrospective review of multimodality imaging features of eleven cases of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast retrieved from a single hospital institution database. Clinical and pathologic data were also documented.Results:The median age of presentation was 65 years. Four cases had axillary lymphadenopathies, and two had distant metastases. An oval mass was the most common sonographic finding (7/11; 64%). Lesions displayed circumscribed/partially circumscribed margins (6/11; 55%) or non-circumscribed margins (5/11; 45%). Most lesions had a heterogeneous echo structure (9/11; 82%) and posterior acoustic enhancement (6/11; 55%). In nine patients, mammographies were available. An oval dense mass was the most common mammographic finding (5/9; 56%). The majority of cases had non-circumscribed margins (6/9; 67%), and nearly half displayed calcifications (4/9; 44%).Conclusions:Mammographic findings were not different from the usual features of more prevalent types of breast cancer, though the majority of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast showed possible distinctive sonographic features, such as circumscribed margins or complex echogenicity, reflecting the histologic background.

No abstract

Purpose In this prospective, multicenter trial we evaluated whether additional shear wave elastography (SWE) for patients with BI-RADS 3 or 4 lesions on breast ultrasound could further refine the assessment with B-mode breast ultrasound for breast cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods We analyzed prospective, multicenter, international data from 1288 women with breast lesions rated by conventional 2 D B-mode ultrasound as BI-RADS 3 to 4c and undergoing 2D-SWE. After reclassification with SWE the proportion of undetected malignancies should be < 2 %. All patients underwent histopathologic evaluation (reference standard). Results Histopathologic evaluation showed malignancy in 368 of 1288 lesions (28.6 %). The assessment with B-mode breast ultrasound resulted in 1.39 % (6 of 431) undetected malignancies (malignant lesions in BI-RADS 3) and 53.80 % (495 of 920) unnecessary biopsies (biopsies in benign lesions). Re-classifying BI-RADS 4a patients with a SWE cutoff of 2.55 m/s resulted in 1.98 % (11 of 556) undetected malignancies and a reduction of 24.24 % (375 vs. 495) of unnecessary biopsies. Conclusion A SWE value below 2.55 m/s for BI-RADS 4a lesions could be used to downstage these lesions to follow-up, and therefore reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies by 24.24 %. However, this would come at the expense of some additionally missed cancers compared to B-mode breast ultrasound (rate of undetected malignancies 1.98 %, 11 of 556, versus 1.39 %, 6 of 431) which would, however, still be in line with the ACR BI-RADS 3 definition (< 2 % of undetected malignancies).

Objectives AI-based algorithms for medical image analysis showed comparable performance to human image readers. However, in practice, diagnoses are made using multiple imaging modalities alongside other data sources. We determined the importance of this multi-modal information and compared the diagnostic performance of routine breast cancer diagnosis to breast ultrasound interpretations by humans or AI-based algorithms. Methods Patients were recruited as part of a multicenter trial (NCT02638935). The trial enrolled 1288 women undergoing routine breast cancer diagnosis (multi-modal imaging, demographic, and clinical information). Three physicians specialized in ultrasound diagnosis performed a second read of all ultrasound images. We used data from 11 of 12 study sites to develop two machine learning (ML) algorithms using unimodal information (ultrasound features generated by the ultrasound experts) to classify breast masses which were validated on the remaining study site. The same ML algorithms were subsequently developed and validated on multi-modal information (clinical and demographic information plus ultrasound features). We assessed performance using area under the curve (AUC). Results Of 1288 breast masses, 368 (28.6%) were histopathologically malignant. In the external validation set (n = 373), the performance of the two unimodal ultrasound ML algorithms (AUC 0.83 and 0.82) was commensurate with performance of the human ultrasound experts (AUC 0.82 to 0.84; p for all comparisons > 0.05). The multi-modal ultrasound ML algorithms performed significantly better (AUC 0.90 and 0.89) but were statistically inferior to routine breast cancer diagnosis (AUC 0.95, p for all comparisons ≤ 0.05). Conclusions The performance of humans and AI-based algorithms improves with multi-modal information. Key Points • The performance of humans and AI-based algorithms improves with multi-modal information. • Multimodal AI-based algorithms do not necessarily outperform expert humans. • Unimodal AI-based algorithms do not represent optimal performance to classify breast masses.

No abstract