Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: To compare the prognosis of patients with axillary adenocarcinoma from an unknown primary (ACUPax) origin with negative MRI results and those with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Materials and Methods: The breast MRI images of 32 patients with ACUPax without signs of primary breast cancer on mammography and ultrasound (US) were analyzed. Spot compression-magnification mammography and second-look US were performed for the area of MRI abnormality in patients with positive results; any positive findings corresponding to the MRI abnormality were confirmed by biopsy. If suspicious MRI lesions could not be localized on mammography or US, MR-guided biopsy or excision biopsy after MR-guided localization was performed. We compared the prognosis of patients with negative breast MRI with that for patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Results: Primary breast cancers were confirmed in 8 (25%) patients after breast MRI. Primary breast cancers were not detected on MRI in 24 (75%) patients, including five cases of false-positive MRI results. Twenty-three patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed by whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) and chemotherapy (n=17) or subsequent chemotherapy only (n=2). Recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur during follow up in 7/8 patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers and 22/24 patients with negative MRI results. Regional recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur in any MR-negative patient who received adjuvant chemotherapy after ALND and WBRT. Conclusion The prognoses of MR-negative patients with ACUPax who received ALND and WBRT followed by chemotherapy were as good as those of patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers.

We present our initial experience of ultrasound (US)-guided localization of clipped metastatic axillary lymph nodes (LNs) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We evaluated US visibility and the successful excision rate of clipped LN after NAC in 29 consecutive patients with breast cancer. US-guided localization of clipped nodes was performed in 22 patients on the day of surgery, while seven patients underwent surgery without localization. The clips were identified in all patients with residual metastatic LNs and 6 of 12 (50%) patients without residual metastatic LNs on US. Six patients without visible clips underwent US-guided localization at the presumed previous clip insertion site. The successful excision rate of 22 LNs with localization was 100% (even though 3 of them were non-sentinel LNs) and 57% (4/7) without localization. Regardless of the presence of visible residual metastatic LNs on US after NAC, successful excision of the clipped LN with US-guided localization is feasible.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of shear-wave elastography (SWE) combined with Doppler ultrasonography (US) in selecting equivocal breast fibroepithelial lesions (FELs) for follow-up without further excision. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of 88 patients with equivocal breast FELs (FELs with the possibility of both fibroadenoma [FA] and phyllodes tumor [PT]) diagnosed by core needle biopsy (CNB). For post-CNB treatment, surgical or vacuum-assisted excision was performed on 88 equivocal FELs, of which 56 were diagnosed as FAs and 32 as PTs on histopathology. Mean elasticity (Emean) and vascularity were determined using SWE and Doppler US. The diagnostic performances of B-mode US, SWE, and Doppler US were calculated to differentiate FAs and PTs in the excised equivocal FELs. Results: In the excised equivocal FELs diagnosed by CNB, FAs showed significantly lower median Emean values (36.4 vs. 66.7 kPa, P=0.005) and more frequent low vascularity (0–1 vessel flow signal) (P<0.001) than PTs. For the differentiation of FAs and PTs, the combination of Emean of >60.9 kPa and high vascularity (≥2 vessel flows) showed a sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100%, as well as better performance in other diagnostic values than B-mode US alone (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System ≥4A) (all P<0.05). Conclusion Equivocal breast FELs showing both low elasticity and low vascularity were not upgraded to PTs upon further excision. Therefore, the combination of SWE and color Doppler US mode might help select patients with equivocal FELs for whom further excision is unnecessary.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of baseline values and temporal changes in body composition parameters, including skeletal muscle index (SMI) and visceral adipose tissue area (VAT), measured using serial computed tomography (CT) imaging on the prognosis of operable breast cancers in Asian patients. Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively included 627 Asian female (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 53.6 ± 8.3 years) who underwent surgery for stage I–III breast cancer between January 2011 and September 2012. Body composition parameters, including SMI and VAT, were semi-automatically calculated on baseline abdominal CT at the time of diagnosis and follow-up CT for post-treatment surveillance. Serial changes in SMI and VAT were calculated as the delta values. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of baseline and delta SMI and VAT values with disease-free survival. Results: Among 627 patients, 56 patients (9.2%) had breast cancer recurrence after a median of 40.5 months. The mean value ± SD of the baseline SMI and baseline VAT were 43.7 ± 5.8 cm2 /m2 and 72.0 ± 46.0 cm2 , respectively. The mean value of the delta SMI was -0.9 cm2 /m2 and the delta VAT was 0.5 cm2 . The baseline SMI and VAT were not significantly associated with disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.983; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.937–1.031; p = 0.475 and adjusted HR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.995–1.006; p = 0.751, respectively). The delta SMI and VAT were also not significantly associated with disease-free survival (adjusted HR, 0.894; 95% CI, 0.766–1.043; p = 0.155 and adjusted HR, 1.001; 95% CI, 0.989–1.014; p = 0.848, respectively). Conclusion Our study revealed that baseline and early temporal changes in SMI and VAT were not independent prognostic factors regarding disease-free survival in Asian patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.

Objective: To compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and MRI as an adjunct to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the preoperative evaluation of women with breast cancer based on mammographic density. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 280 patients with breast cancer who had undergone FFDM, DBT, and MRI for preoperative local tumor staging. Three radiologists independently sought the index cancer and additional ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancers using either FFDM alone, DBT plus FFDM, or MRI plus FFDM. Diagnostic performances across the three radiologists were compared among the reading modes in all patients and subgroups with dense (n = 186) and non-dense breasts (n = 94) according to mammographic density. Results: Of 280 patients, 46 (16.4%) had 48 additional (39 ipsilateral and nine contralateral) cancers in addition to the index cancer. For index cancers, both DBT plus FFDM and MRI plus FFDM showed sensitivities of 100% in the non-dense group.In the dense group, DBT plus FFDM showed lower sensitivity than that of MRI plus FFDM (94.6% vs. 99.6%, p < 0.001). For additional ipsilateral cancers, DBT plus FFDM showed specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% in the non-dense group, but sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were not statistically different from those of MRI plus FFDM (p > 0.05). In the dense group, DBT plus FFDM showed higher specificity (98.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.005) and PPV (83.1% vs. 65.4%;p = 0.036) than those of MRI plus FFDM, but lower sensitivity (59.9% vs. 75.3%; p = 0.049). For contralateral cancers, DBT plus FFDM showed higher specificity than that of MRI plus FFDM (99.0% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.014), however, the other values did not differ (all p > 0.05) in the dense group. Conclusion DBT plus FFDM showed an overall higher specificity than that of MRI plus FFDM regardless of breast density, perhaps without substantial loss in sensitivity and NPV in the diagnosis of additional cancers. Thus, DBT may have the potential to be used as a preoperative breast cancer staging tool.