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.

Background and Objectives: This study investigated whether an artificial intelligence computer-assisted diagnosis (AI-CAD) software recently developed in our institution named the Severance Artificial intelligence program (SERA) could show similar diagnostic performance for thyroid cancers using ultrasonographic (US) images from a mobile phone (SERA_M) compared to using images directly downloaded from the pictures archive and communication system (PACS) (SERA_P). Materials and Methods: From October 2019 to December 2019, 259 thyroid nodules from 259 patients were included. SERA was run on original and mobile images to evaluate SERA_P and SERA_M. Nodules were categorized according to the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS). To compare diagnostic performance, a logistic regression analysis was conducted using the Generalized Estimating Equation. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and compared using the Delong Method. Results: There were 40 cancers (15.4%) and 219 benign lesions (84.6%). The AUC and sensitivity of SERA_M (0.82 and 85%, respectively) were not statistically different from SERA_P (0.8 and 75%, respectively) (p=0.526 and p=0.091, respectively). The AUC of radiologists (0.856) was not significantly different compared to SERA_P and SERA_M (p=0.163 and p=0.414, respectively). The sensitivity of radiologists (77.5%) was not statistically different compared to SERA_P and SERA_M (p=0.739 and p=0.361, respectively). Conclusion AI-CAD software using pictures taken by a mobile phone showed comparable diagnostic performance with the same software using images directly from PACS.

Purpose: Detection of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers in patients affects surgical management. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) can identify additional foci that were initially undetected by conventional imaging. However, its use is limited owing to low specificity and high false-positive rate. Multiparametric MRI (DCE-MRI + diffusion-weighted [DW] MRI) can increase the specificity. We aimed to describe the protocols of our prospective, multicenter, observational cohort studies designed to compare the diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI and multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of multifocal, multicentric cancer and contralateral breast cancer in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Methods Two studies comparing the performance of DCE-MRI and multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of multifocal, multicentric cancer (NCT04656639) and contralateral breast cancer (NCT05307757) will be conducted. For trial NCT04656639, 580 females with invasive breast cancer candidates for breast conservation surgery whose DCE-MRI showed additional suspicious lesions (breast imaging reporting and data system [BI-RADS] category ≥ 4) on DCE-MRI in the ipsilateral breast will be enrolled. For trial NCT05307757, 1098 females with invasive breast cancer whose DCE-MRI showed contralateral lesions (BI-RADS category ≥ 3 or higher on DCE-MRI) will be enrolled. Participants will undergo 3.0-T DCE-MRI and DWMRI. The diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI and multiparametric MRI will be compared.The receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and characteristics of the detected cancers will be analyzed. The primary outcome is the difference in the receiver operating characteristic curve between DCE-MRI and multiparametric MRI interpretation. Enrollment completion is expected in 2024, and study results are expected to be presented in 2026.Discussion: This prospective, multicenter study will compare the performance of DCE-MRI versus multiparametric MRI for the preoperative evaluation of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancer and is currently in the patient enrollment phase.

Purpose: To evaluate and analyze the adequacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)s taken before publication of the 2018 recommendation in South Korea. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 87 cases of breast MRIs, from January 2010 to November 2013, taken at external hospitals in the study. Breast MRI protocol elements are divided into three categories based on the recommendation by the Breast Imaging Study Group of the Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance: (1) Essential elements for breast MRI protocol; (2) Element to consider when evaluating imaging quality; and (3) Optional element for breast MRI protocol. Also, we divided enrolled cases into three groups based on their conducting locations -- (1) Primary hospitals, (2) Secondary hospitals, and (3) Tertiary hospitals-and analyzed them for the adequacy of imaging protocols based on the 2018 recommendation. We used a Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test to identify differences between categorical variables. Results: Over 98% of the criteria for 'essential elements for breast MRI protocol' were satisfied when compared with the 2018 Recommendation. Over 96% of the criteria for 'elements to consider when evaluating imaging quality' were also satisfied, except for the slice thickness (83.9%). Optional elements for breast MRI protocol were satisfied with various percentages. There were no statistically significant differences between groups of tertiary, secondary, and primary hospitals; however, 3 tesla of MRI (P = 0.04), subtraction image protocol (P = 0.032), and DWI protocol (P = 0.03) were used more frequently in the tertiary hospitals than in the others. Conclusion We found that the categories of 'essential elements' and 'elements to consider when evaluating imaging quality' were satisfied at 98% and 96%, respectively, when compared with the 2018 Recommendation by the Breast Imaging Study Group of the Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance.

Purpose: Interest in unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for breast cancer is growing due to concerns about gadolinium deposition in the brain and the high cost of contrast-enhanced MRI. The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Trial (DWIST), which is a prospective, multicenter, intraindividual comparative cohort study designed to compare the performance of mammography, ultrasonography, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI screening in women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Methods A total of 890 women with BRCA mutation or family history of breast cancer and lifetime risk ≥ 20% are enrolled. The participants undergo 2 annual breast screenings with digital mammography, ultrasonography, DCE MRI, and DW MRI at 3.0 T. Images are independently interpreted by trained radiologists. The reference standard is a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up. Each image modality and their combination will be compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, rate of invasive cancer detection, abnormal interpretation rate, and characteristics of detected cancers. The first participant was enrolled in April 2019. At the time of manuscript submission, 5 academic medical centers in South Korea are actively enrolling eligible women and a total of 235 women have undergone the first round of screening. Completion of enrollment is expected in 2022 and the results of the study are expected to be published in 2026.Discussion: DWIST is the first prospective multicenter study to compare the performance of DW MRI and conventional imaging modalities for breast cancer screening in high-risk women. DWIST is currently in the patient enrollment phase.

Purpose: To evaluate and analyze the adequacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)s taken before publication of the 2018 recommendation in South Korea. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 87 cases of breast MRIs, from January 2010 to November 2013, taken at external hospitals in the study. Breast MRI protocol elements are divided into three categories based on the recommendation by the Breast Imaging Study Group of the Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance: (1) Essential elements for breast MRI protocol; (2) Element to consider when evaluating imaging quality; and (3) Optional element for breast MRI protocol. Also, we divided enrolled cases into three groups based on their conducting locations -- (1) Primary hospitals, (2) Secondary hospitals, and (3) Tertiary hospitals-and analyzed them for the adequacy of imaging protocols based on the 2018 recommendation. We used a Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test to identify differences between categorical variables. Results: Over 98% of the criteria for 'essential elements for breast MRI protocol' were satisfied when compared with the 2018 Recommendation. Over 96% of the criteria for 'elements to consider when evaluating imaging quality' were also satisfied, except for the slice thickness (83.9%). Optional elements for breast MRI protocol were satisfied with various percentages. There were no statistically significant differences between groups of tertiary, secondary, and primary hospitals; however, 3 tesla of MRI (P = 0.04), subtraction image protocol (P = 0.032), and DWI protocol (P = 0.03) were used more frequently in the tertiary hospitals than in the others. Conclusion We found that the categories of 'essential elements' and 'elements to consider when evaluating imaging quality' were satisfied at 98% and 96%, respectively, when compared with the 2018 Recommendation by the Breast Imaging Study Group of the Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance.

Purpose: Interest in unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for breast cancer is growing due to concerns about gadolinium deposition in the brain and the high cost of contrast-enhanced MRI. The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Trial (DWIST), which is a prospective, multicenter, intraindividual comparative cohort study designed to compare the performance of mammography, ultrasonography, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI screening in women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Methods A total of 890 women with BRCA mutation or family history of breast cancer and lifetime risk ≥ 20% are enrolled. The participants undergo 2 annual breast screenings with digital mammography, ultrasonography, DCE MRI, and DW MRI at 3.0 T. Images are independently interpreted by trained radiologists. The reference standard is a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up. Each image modality and their combination will be compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, rate of invasive cancer detection, abnormal interpretation rate, and characteristics of detected cancers. The first participant was enrolled in April 2019. At the time of manuscript submission, 5 academic medical centers in South Korea are actively enrolling eligible women and a total of 235 women have undergone the first round of screening. Completion of enrollment is expected in 2022 and the results of the study are expected to be published in 2026.Discussion: DWIST is the first prospective multicenter study to compare the performance of DW MRI and conventional imaging modalities for breast cancer screening in high-risk women. DWIST is currently in the patient enrollment phase.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the survival rates of Korean females aged 40 to 49 years with breast cancer detected by supplemental screening ultrasound (US) or screening mammography alone. Materials and Methods: This single-institution retrospective study included 240 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 45.1 ± 2.8 years) detected by US or mammography who had undergone breast surgery between 2003 and 2008. Medical records were reviewed for clinicopathologic characteristics and detection methods. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with breast cancer in the US and mammography groups using the log-rank test. Multivariable cox regression analysis was used to identify independent variables associated with DFS and OS. Results: Among the 240 cases of breast cancer, 43 were detected by supplemental screening US and 197 by screening mammography (mean follow-up: 7.4 years, 93.3% with dense breasts). There were 19 recurrences and 16 deaths, all occurring in the mammography group. While the US group did not differ from the mammography group in tumor stage, the patients in this group were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy than the mammography group.The US group also showed better DFS (p = 0.016); however, OS did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.058). In the multivariable analysis, the US group showed a lower risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.097; 95% confidence interval, 0.001–0.705) compared to the mammography group. Conclusion Our study found that Korean females aged 40–49 years with US-detected breast cancer showed better DFS than those with mammography-detected breast cancer. However, there were no statistically significant differences in OS.