Melissa A. Durand

Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography

IMPORTANCE Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. OBJECTIVE To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. EXPOSURES Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. RESULTS A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening

PURPOSE To compare screening recall rates and cancer detection rates of tomosynthesis plus conventional digital mammography to those of conventional digital mammography alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients presenting for screening mammography between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012, at four clinical sites were reviewed in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, for which the institutional review board granted approval and waived the requirement for informed consent. Patients at sites with digital tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Patients at sites without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography. Recall rates were calculated and stratified according to breast density and patient age. Cancer detection rates were calculated and stratified according to the presence of a risk factor for breast cancer. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of screening method, breast density, patient age, and cancer risk on the odds of recall from screening. RESULTS A total of 13 158 patients presented for screening mammography; 6100 received tomosynthesis. The overall recall rate was 8.4% for patients in the tomosynthesis group and 12.0% for those in the conventional mammography group (P < .01). The addition of tomosynthesis reduced recall rates for all breast density and patient age groups, with significant differences (P < .05) found for scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense breasts and for patients younger than 40 years, those aged 40-49 years, those aged 50-59 years, and those aged 60-69 years. These findings persisted when multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, breast density, and elevated risk of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate was 5.7 per 1000 in patients receiving tomosynthesis versus 5.2 per 1000 in patients receiving conventional mammography alone (P = .70). CONCLUSION Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group.

Early Clinical Experience with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening Mammography

PURPOSE To examine recall rates from screening mammography and the mammographic findings that caused recall in women who underwent digital breast tomosynthesis with conventional mammography (referred to as two-dimensional [ 2D two-dimensional ] with three-dimensional [ 3D three-dimensional ] imaging [ 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional ]) and in women who underwent conventional mammography alone (referred to as 2D two-dimensional ). MATERIALS AND METHODS This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study with waivers of informed consent. A retrospective review of 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional and 2D two-dimensional screening mammograms from August 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, was performed. Recall rates and abnormalities that caused recall were compared by controlling for differences in patient age, breast density, and risk factors. Cancer detection rate was assessed from this time period and from 1 year before the introduction of tomosynthesis for a historic control. RESULTS This study included 17 955 screening mammograms; of the total, there were 8591 (47.8%) 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional screening examinations and 9364 (52.2%) 2D two-dimensional examinations. The recall rate was 7.8% (671 of 8592) for 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional and 12.3% (1154 of 9364) for 2D two-dimensional (P < .0001); the rate of recall was 36.6% lower in the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group than in the 2D two-dimensional group. Recall rates for the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group were significantly lower for patients with asymmetries, ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 3.1% [267 of 8591] vs 7.4% [689 of 9364], respectively; P < .0001) and calcifications ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 2.4% [205 of 8591] vs 3.2% [297 of 9364], respectively; P = .0014). For patients with masses and architectural distortion, the difference in recall rates was not significant (masses: 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 2.5% [215 of 8591] vs 2.5% [237 of 9364], respectively; P = .90; architectural distortion: 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional vs 2D two-dimensional , 0.68% [58 of 8591] vs 0.69% [65 of 9364]; P = .88). Cancer detection was highest in the 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional group at 5.9 cancers per 1000 examinations, with 5.7 cancers per 1000 examinations in the concurrent 2D two-dimensional group, and 4.4 cancers per 1000 examinations in the historic control. CONCLUSION Use of tomosynthesis ( 2D two-dimensional + 3D three-dimensional ) compared with conventional mammography ( 2D two-dimensional ) is associated with a lower recall rate of screening mammography, most often for asymmetries.

Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts

its subsidiaries inthe United States and/or other countries. This information is intended for medical professionals in the U.S. and other markets and is not intended as a product solicitation or promotion where such activities are prohibited. Because Hologic materials are distributed through websites, eBroadcasts and tradeshows, it is not always possible to control where such materials appear. For specific information on what products are available for sale in a particular country, please contact your local Hologic representative or write to womenshealth@hologic.com. DIVISIONAL HEADER

Tomosynthesis-detected Architectural Distortion: Management Algorithm with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

As use of digital breast tomosynthesis becomes increasingly widespread, new management challenges are inevitable because tomosynthesis may reveal suspicious lesions not visible at conventional two-dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammography. Architectural distortion is a mammographic finding associated with a high positive predictive value for malignancy. It is detected more frequently at tomosynthesis than at 2D digital mammography and may even be occult at conventional 2D imaging. Few studies have focused on tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortions to date, and optimal management of these distortions has yet to be well defined. Since implementing tomosynthesis at our institution in 2011, we have learned some practical ways to assess architectural distortion. Because distortions may be subtle, tomosynthesis localization tools plus improved visualization of adjacent landmarks are crucial elements in guiding mammographic identification of elusive distortions. These same tools can guide more focused ultrasonography (US) of the breast, which facilitates detection and permits US-guided tissue sampling. Some distortions may be sonographically occult, in which case magnetic resonance imaging may be a reasonable option, both to increase diagnostic confidence and to provide a means for image-guided biopsy. As an alternative, tomosynthesis-guided biopsy, conventional stereotactic biopsy (when possible), or tomosynthesis-guided needle localization may be used to achieve tissue diagnosis. Practical uses for tomosynthesis in evaluation of architectural distortion are highlighted, potential complications are identified, and a working algorithm for management of tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion is proposed.

Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time

Purpose To evaluate the effect of tomosynthesis in diagnostic mammography on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories over time. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. The authors reviewed all diagnostic mammograms obtained during a 12-month interval before (two-dimensional [2D] mammography [June 2, 2010, to June 1, 2011]) and for 3 consecutive years after (tomosynthesis year 1 [2012], tomosynthesis year 2 [2013], and tomosynthesis year 3 [2014]) the implementation of tomosynthesis. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. The rates of BI-RADS final assessment categories 1-5 were compared between the 2D and tomosynthesis groups. The positive predictive values after biopsy (PPV3) for BI-RADS category 4 and 5 cases were compared. The mammographic features (masses, architectural distortions, calcifications, focal asymmetries) of lesions categorized as probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) and those for which biopsy was recommended (BI-RADS category 4 or 5) were reviewed. The χ(2) test was used to compare the rates of BI-RADS final assessment categories 1-5 between the two groups, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to compare all diagnostic studies categorized as BI-RADS 3-5. Results There was an increase in the percentage of cases reported as negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) with tomosynthesis (58.7% with 2D mammography vs 75.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .0001). A reduction in the percentage of probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) final assessments also occurred (33.3% with 2D mammography vs 16.4% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .0001). Although the rates of BI-RADS 4 or 5 assessments did not change significantly with tomosynthesis (8.0% with 2D mammography vs 7.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P = .2), there was a significant increase in the PPV3 (29.6% vs 50%, respectively; P < .0001). These trends increased during the 3 years of tomosynthesis use. Conclusion Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting resulted in progressive shifts in the BI-RADS final assessment categories over time, with a significant increase in the proportion of studies classified as normal, a continued decrease in the rate of studies categorized as probably benign, and improved diagnostic confidence in biopsy recommendations. (©) RSNA, 2016.

Advances in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVE Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has rapidly emerged as an important new imaging tool that reduces the masking effect of overlapping fibroglandular tissue, thereby improving breast cancer detection. This article will review key features of DBT including technique, clinical implementation, and benign and malignant imaging findings. We will also present the benefits of DBT in screening, diagnostic workup, and image-guided biopsy. CONCLUSION Tomosynthesis improves interpretive performance and will likely replace conventional 2D mammography in clinical practice.

Implementation of Whole-Breast Screening Ultrasonography

Whole-breast screening ultrasonography is being increasingly implemented in breast imaging centers because numerous studies have shown the benefit of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts and breast density notification laws are becoming more widespread. This article reviews the numerous considerations involved in integrating a screening ultrasonography program into a busy practice.

Can Tomosynthesis Replace 2D Mammography as a Future Breast Screening Tool

Digital 2D mammography is the current standard of care for breast cancer screening. False positives and overdiagnosis have been cited as potential harms of screening mammography, and efforts to improve this technology have led to the development of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The literature thus far has shown screening with tomosynthesis to simultaneously decrease recall rates and increase cancer detection. This review evaluates the possibility for 2D plus tomosynthesis mammography to replace conventional 2D screening. It outlines the requirements of an effective screening modality, reviews early and recent literature on performance outcomes, including results by age and density, and highlights potential challenges.

Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has improved conventional mammography by increasing cancer detection while reducing recall rates. However, these benefits come at the cost of increased radiation dose. Synthesized mammography (s2D) has been developed to provide the advantages of DBT with nearly half the radiation dose. Since its F.D.A. approval, multiple studies have evaluated the clinical performance of s2D. In clinical practice, s2D images are not identical to conventional 2D images and are designed for interpretation with DBT as a complement. This article reviews the present literature to assess whether s2D is a practical alternative to conventional 2D, addresses the differences in mammographic appearance of findings, and provides suggestions for implementation into clinical practice.