Emma Hurley

Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Purpose To assess whether individual reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read. Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean age, 56 years) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program), an ethically approved, multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study, between July 2011 and March 2013. Each case was read prospectively for clinical assessment and to establish ground truth. A retrospective reading data set of 7060 cases was created and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous examinations. Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers, and two breast clinicians) who had 3-25 (median, 10) years of experience in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program and read 5000-13 000 (median, 8000) cases per annum were included in this study. Specificity was analyzed according to reader type and years and volume of experience, and then both specificity and sensitivity were analyzed by matched inference. The median duration of experience (10 years) was used as the cutoff point for comparison of reader performance. Results Specificity improved with the addition of DBT for all readers. This was significant for all staff groups (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, respectively; 46% vs 55% [P = .02] for breast clinicians). Sensitivity was improved for 19 of 24 (79%) readers and was significantly higher for those with less than 10 years of experience (91% vs 86%; P = .03) and those with total mammographic experience of fewer than 80 000 cases (88% vs 86%; P = .03). Conclusion The addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but the gain in sensitivity was greater for readers with less than 10 years of experience.

Digital breast tomosynthesis at screening assessment: are two views always necessary?

OBJECTIVE The current recommendation from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can be used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities in place of spot compression views and when used should be performed in two projections. The aim of the study was to assess whether two-view DBT is necessary if the abnormality is seen only in one view on initial full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS 617 cases with possible masses, distortions and asymmetrical densities visualized only in one view on screening FFDM were included. All of these females underwent two-view DBT, clinical examination and ultrasound. The FFDM and DBT findings on each view were compared and correlated with the histological diagnosis. RESULTS 586 of 617 cases had normal or benign findings on further assessment, and no additional information was obtained on the other DBT view. There were 31 confirmed cancers. In 26 cases (84%), the cancer was seen on the corresponding DBT view. No cancer was seen on the other DBT view alone. Five cancers (16%) were not seen on either view on DBT owing to technical reasons. No cancers would have been missed if only the corresponding DBT view was performed. CONCLUSION Two-view DBT may not be necessary when used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities. Larger studies should be undertaken to investigate this further. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE One-view DBT may be adequate in assessing soft-tissue abnormalities seen only on one FFDM view.

A randomised trial of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis plus conventional digital 2D mammography versus 2D mammography alone in younger higher risk women

INTRODUCTION Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to increase invasive cancer detection rates at screening compared to full field digital (2D) mammography alone, and some studies have reported a reduction in the screening recall rate. No prospective randomised studies of DBT have previously been published. This study compares recall rates with 2D mammography with and without concurrent DBT in women in their forties with a family history of breast cancer undergoing incident screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS Asymptomatic women aged 40-49 who had previously undergone mammography for an increased risk of breast cancer were recruited in two screening centres. Participants were randomised to screening with 2D mammography only at the first study screen followed a year later by screening with 2D plus DBT, or vice versa. Recall rates were compared using an intention to treat analysis. Reading performance was analysed for the larger centre. RESULTS 1227 women were recruited. 1221 first screens (604 2D, 617 2D+DBT) and 1124second screens (558 2D+DBT, 566 2D) were analysed. Eleven women had screen-detected cancers: 5 after 2D, 6 after 2D+DBT. The false positive recall rates were 2.4% for 2D and 2.2% for 2D+DBT (p=0.89). There was a significantly greater reduction between rounds in the number of women with abnormal reads who were not recalled after consensus/arbitration with 2D+DBT than 2D (p=0.023). CONCLUSION The addition of DBT to 2D mammography in incident screening did not lead to a significant reduction in recall rate. DBT may increase reader uncertainty until DBT screening experience is acquired.

Factors Affecting Agreement between Breast Density Assessment Using Volumetric Methods and Visual Analogue Scales

Mammographic density in digital mammograms can be assessed visually or using automated volumetric methods; the aim in both cases is to identify women at greater risk of developing breast cancer, and those for whom mammography is less sensitive. Ideally all methods should identify the same women as having high density, but this is not the case in practice. 6422 women were ranked from the highest to lowest density by three methods: QuantraTM, VolparaTM and visual assessment recorded on Visual Analogue Scales. For each pair of methods the 20 cases with the greatest agreement in rank were compared with the 20 with the least agreement. The presence of microcalcifications, skin folds, suboptimally positioned inframammary folds, and whether or not the nipple was in profile were found to affect agreement between methods (p<0.05). Careful positioning during mammographic imaging should reduce discrepancy, but a greater understanding of the relationship between methods is also required.

False-negative MRI breast screening in high-risk women

AIM To determine the frequency of and reasons for false-negative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations in high-risk women undergoing annual screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS The family history clinic database was interrogated and women at high risk of breast cancer who had undergone screening MRI and been diagnosed with breast cancer within 2 years of the MRI examination were identified. All available MRI examinations were reviewed and classified by two radiologists. RESULTS Of 32 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 23 had MRI images available for review. Fourteen were diagnosed at MRI, four at interim mammography, two symptomatically, one incidentally on ultrasound, and two at risk-reducing mastectomy. Ten women (43%) had potentially avoidable delays in diagnosis. The preceding MRIs were classified as false-negative screens in five women (one prevalent, four incident), false-negative assessment in seven and minimal signs in three (three women were assigned dual classifications). Common reasons for diagnostic delay included small enhancing masses that were overlooked, areas of non-mass enhancement that showed little or no change between screens, false reassurance from normal conventional imaging at assessment, and overreliance on short-interval repeat MRI. CONCLUSION Small enhancing foci, masses, and areas of segmental non-mass enhancement are common MRI features of early breast cancer. Lack of change of non-mass enhancement on serial examinations does not exclude malignancy. Double reading of both screening and assessment examinations is recommended. Ready access to MRI biopsy is essential. Short-interval repeat MRI should be limited to reassessing low suspicion areas likely to be benign glandular enhancement. Annual mammography remains important in these women.

Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vary with experience of 2D mammography

This work was funded by the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Mammographic Density Over Time in Women With and Without Breast Cancer

This study compared mammographic density over time between women who developed breast cancer cases and women who did not controls. Cases had an initial negative mammographic screen and another three years later when cancer was diagnosed. Cases were matched to three controls with two successive negative screens by age, year of mammogram, BMI, parity, menopausal status and HRT use. Mammographic density was measured by VolparaTM. There was a significant reduction in percentage density in the affected breast for cases 5.2 to 4.8i?ź%, pi?ź<i?ź0.001 and for the same matched breast in controls 4.9 to 4.5, pi?ź<i?ź0.001. Similar results were found for the unaffected breast. After adjusting for density measures at the initial screen, case-control status was only significantly associated with fibroglandular volume in the unaffected breast adjusted mean 45.8i?źcm3 in cases, 44.0i?źcm3 in controls, pi?ź=i?ź0.008. The results suggest changes in mammographic density may be less important than initial mammographic density.

Erratum to: MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis

The online version of the original article can be found under doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2931-9 .

PB. 5. Accuracy of axillary nodal staging on MRI of the breasts: correlation with ultrasound of the axilla and histopathology findings

Ultrasound (US) is routinely used for preoperative staging of the axilla in women with breast cancer but this has limitations with variable sensitivities published in the literature. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breasts is frequently performed for preoperative staging of the breasts, and the axilla can be visualised on these scans. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of axillary nodal staging on MRI of the breasts.