Objective: To investigate whether breast tissue composition on preoperative automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is associated with the accuracy of cancer multiplicity evaluation and postoperative recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis included women with early-stage breast cancer (clinical Tis, T1–2/N0) who underwent ABUS and digital mammography (DM) between October 2019 and April 2021. Tissue composition on ABUS was assessed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System background echotexture (BE) (homogeneous-fat, homogeneous-fibroglandular, or heterogeneous). In a subgroup of patients with mammographically dense breasts, the glandular tissue component (GTC) on ABUS were further stratified into high (moderate or marked) or low (minimal or mild).Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with accurate cancer multiplicity categorization (unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, or bilateral) using ABUS + DM, and with RFS, respectively. Results: Among 409 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 50.2 ± 8.7 years), ABUS combined with DM yielded accurate cancer multiplicity categorization in 368 patients (90.0%). Neither BE nor GTC on ABUS affected the accuracy of categorization when ABUS was combined with DM. Over a median postoperative follow-up of 3.5 years, 11 recurrences occurred. Heterogeneous BE on ABUS (hazard ratio [HR] 11.24 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.82–44.92]; P = 0.001), BRCA mutation (HR 15.94 [2.47–102.97]; P = 0.004), and pathologic index cancer size (HR per 1-cm increase 1.91 [1.13–3.23];P = 0.02) was independently associated with RFS. In patients with dense breasts, heterogeneous BE (HR 14.17 [95% CI:2.69–74.60]; P = 0.002) and high GTC (HR 10.32 [2.35–45.28]; P = 0.002) on ABUS, BRCA mutation (HR 24.34 [2.75– 215.06]; P = 0.004), and pathologic cancer size (HR per 1-cm increase 2.62 [1.50–4.59]; P = 0.001) was independently associated with RFS. Conclusion In patients with early-stage breast cancer, heterogeneous BE and high GTC on preoperative ABUS, along with larger cancer size and BRCA mutation, was associated with worse RFS. However, BE and GTC did not affect cancer multiplicity evaluation when ABUS was used in combination with DM.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of supplemental automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) added to mammography-based breast cancer screening for women with nondense breasts. Materials and Methods: A retrospective search of radiology databases at two tertiary institutions identified asymptomatic women with nondense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening using both digital mammography (DM) and supplemental ABUS between January 2020 and December 2023. We excluded women without sufficient follow-up data or those without an established final diagnosis, including histopathologic results. The performance measures of DM alone and ABUS combined with DM (ABUS plus DM) were compared. The primary outcome was the cancer detection rate (CDR), and the secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were performed for women with scattered fibroglandular density and almost entirely fatty breasts. Results: A total of 2,904 pairs of screening examinations were performed in 1,683 women (59 ± 10 years), detecting 26 cancers. In comparison with DM alone, ABUS plus DM showed higher CDR (9.0 vs. 7.9 per 1,000 examinations, P < 0.001), higher sensitivity (100% [26/26] vs. 88.5% [23/26], P < 0.001), and lower specificity (95.0% [2,735/2,878] vs. 97.9% [2,817/2,878], P < 0.001). In women with scattered fibroglandular density, ABUS increased the CDR from 7.4 to 8.5 per 1,000 examinations and improved the sensitivity from 87.0% [20/23] to 100% [23/23] (P < 0.001). In women with almost entirely fatty breasts, ABUS plus DM showed the same CDR (16.4 per 1,000 examinations) and sensitivity (100% [3/3]) as DM alone. Three cancers (11.5% [3/26]), all of which were stage T1N0, were detected only by supplemental ABUS. Conclusion Supplemental ABUS improved cancer detection and sensitivity in women with nondense breasts, with the benefits primarily observed in those with scattered fibroglandular density.

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: Evaluating the role of preoperative axillary ultrasound (US) in early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer, focusing on its ability to predict nodal metastasis and long-term recurrence. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with T1–T2 clinically node-negative breast cancer who underwent preoperative axillary US and surgery between January and December 2009. Based on US findings, patients were classified as US-positive (presence of suspicious nodes, such as cortical thickening or absent fatty hilum) or US-negative.Clinicopathological features and recurrence outcomes were analyzed using the χ2 test, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: Among 878 women (mean age, 49 ± 9 years), 234 were US-positive and 644 were US-negative; 283 patients were pathologic node-positive (pN ≥ 1) and 595 were node-negative (pN0). Preoperative axillary US demonstrated a sensitivity of 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.8–48.2); specificity, 80.8% (95% CI, 77.5–83.8); positive predictive value, 51.3% (95% CI, 44.9–57.6); and negative predictive value, 74.7% (95% CI, 71.2–77.9). The US-positive group had a higher rate of axillary lymph node dissection (62.8% vs. 32.8%), greater mean number of metastatic nodes (2.6 vs. 0.5), and higher proportion of macrometastasis (94.2% vs. 71.8%) compared with the US-negative group (all p < 0.001). The 10-year recurrencefree survival was lowest in the pN-positive/US-positive group (90.3%; 95% CI, 82.7–94.7), intermediate in the pN-positive/US-negative group (92.4%; 95% CI, 86.7–95.7), and highest in the pN-negative group (97.4%; 95% CI, 95.4–98.5) (log-rank p < 0.001). Conclusion Preoperative axillary US might help assess lymph node metastasis in clinically node-negative patients. Moreover, US positivity was associated with an increased risk of long-term recurrence.

Objective: To investigate whether reader training improves the performance and agreement of radiologists in interpreting unenhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Materials and Methods: A study of 96 breasts (35 cancers, 24 benign, and 37 negative) in 48 asymptomatic women was performed between June 2019 and October 2020. High-resolution DWI with b-values of 0, 800, and 1200 sec/mm 2 was performed using a 3.0-T system. Sixteen breast radiologists independently reviewed the DWI, apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and T1-weighted MRI scans and recorded the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category for each breast. After a 2-h training session and a 5-month washout period, they re-evaluated the BI-RADS categories. A BI-RADS category of 4 (lesions with at least two suspicious criteria) or 5 (more than two suspicious criteria) was considered positive.The per-breast diagnostic performance of each reader was compared between the first and second reviews. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using a multi-rater κ analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Before training, the mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 16 readers were 70.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59.4–79.9), 90.8% (95% CI: 85.6–94.2), and 83.5% (95% CI: 78.6–87.4), respectively. After training, significant improvements in specificity (95.2%; 95% CI: 90.8–97.5; P = 0.001) and accuracy (85.9%; 95% CI: 80.9–89.8; P = 0.01) were observed, but no difference in sensitivity (69.8%; 95% CI: 58.1–79.4; P = 0.58) was observed. Regarding inter-reader agreement, the κ values were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52–0.63) before training and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62–0.74) after training, with a difference of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18; P = 0.01). The ICC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69–0.74) before training and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.80) after training (P = 0.002). Conclusion Brief reader training improved the performance and agreement of interpretations by breast radiologists using unenhanced MRI with DWI.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.