Randi Gullien

Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program

PURPOSE To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images

PURPOSE To compare the performance of two versions of reconstructed two-dimensional (2D) images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus the performance of standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS This trial had ethical committee approval, and all participants gave written informed consent. Examinations (n = 24 901) in women between the ages of 50 and 69 years (mean age, 59.2 years) were interpreted prospectively as part of a screening trial that included independent interpretations of FFDM plus DBT and reconstructed 2D images plus DBT. Reconstructed 2D images do not require radiation exposure. Using analyses for binary data that accounted for correlated interpretations and were adjusted for reader-specific volume, two versions (initial and current) of reconstructed 2D images used during trial periods 1 (from November 22, 2010, to December 21, 2011; 12 631 women) and 2 (from January 20, 2012, to December 19, 2012; 12 270 women) were compared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DBT interpretations. RESULTS Cancer detection rates were 8.0, 7.4, 7.8, and 7.7 per 1000 screening examinations for FFDM plus DBT in period 1, initial reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 1, FFDM plus DBT in period 2, and current reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 2, respectively. False-positive scores were 5.3%, 4.6%, 4.6%, and 4.5%, respectively. Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed significant differences for period 1 (P = .012) but not for period 2 (ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11; P = .85). CONCLUSION The combination of current reconstructed 2D images and DBT performed comparably to FFDM plus DBT and is adequate for routine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising new technology. Some experimental clinical studies have shown positive results, but the future role and indications of this new technique, whether in a screening or clinical setting, need to be evaluated. Purpose To compare digital mammography and DBT in a side-by-side feature analysis for cancer conspicuity, and to assess whether there is a potential additional value of DBT to standard state-of-the-art conventional imaging work-up with respect to detection of additional malignancies. Material and Methods The study had ethics committee approval. A total of 129 women underwent 2D digital mammography including supplementary cone-down and magnification views and breast ultrasonography if indicated, as well as digital breast tomosynthesis. The indication for conventional imaging in the clinical setting included a palpable lump in 30 (23%), abnormal mammographic screening findings in 54 (42%), and surveillance in 45 (35%) of the women. The women were examined according to present guidelines, including spot-magnification views, ultrasonography, and needle biopsies, if indicated. The DBT examinations were interpreted several weeks after the conventional imaging without knowledge of the conventional imaging findings. In a later session, three radiologists performed a side-by-side feature analysis for cancer conspicuity in a sample of 50 cases. Results State-of-the-art conventional imaging resulted in needle biopsy of 45 breasts, of which 20 lesions were benign and a total of 25 cancers were diagnosed. The remaining 84 women were dismissed with a normal/definitely benign finding and without indication for needle biopsy. The subsequent DBT interpretation found suspicious findings in four of these 84 women, and these four women had to be called back for repeated work-up with knowledge of the tomosynthesis findings. These delayed work-ups resulted in two cancers (increasing the cancer detection by 8%) and two false-positive findings. The side-by-side feature analysis showed higher conspicuity scores for tomosynthesis compared to conventional 2D for cancers presenting as spiculated masses and distortions. Conclusion Tomosynthesis is a promising new technique. Our preliminary clinical experience shows that there is a potential for increasing the sensitivity using this new technique, especially for cancers manifesting as spiculated masses and distortions.

Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study

Background Automated breast ultrasonography (ABUS) has the potential to be an important adjunct to mammography in women with dense breasts. Purpose To compare reader performance and inter-observer variation of ABUS alone and in combination with mammography. Material and Methods This retrospective study had ethical committee approval. All women gave written informed consent. One hundred and fourteen breasts in 90 women examined by digital mammography and ABUS were interpreted by five radiologists using BI-RADS categories. The 114 breasts included 38 cancers and 76 normal or benign findings. In the first reading session ABUS only was interpreted, and in the second ABUS plus digital mammography. Image interpretations were done without knowledge of clinical or imaging results. A consensus panel analyzed false negative and false positive interpretations. Reading time was recorded for one radiologist. AUC was used for performance measurement, and kappa statistic for inter-observer variability. Results Mean size for cancers was 16.2 mm; area under the curve (AUC) values for ABUS alone and for combined reading were, respectively: reader A, 0.592–0.744; reader B, 0.740–0.947; reader, C 0.759–0.823; reader D, 0.670–0.688; reader E, 0.904–0.923; and all readers combined 0.730–0.823. The higher AUC for combined reading was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for reader B and for all readers. There was a considerable inter-observer variability. Observer agreement revealed following kappa values for ABUS alone and combined reading, respectively: reader A, 0.22–0.30; reader B, 0.33–0.44; reader C, 0.32–0.39; reader D, 0.07–0.14; and reader E, 0.34–0.43. Shadowing from dense parenchyma was the most common cause of false positive ABUS interpretations. Mean interpretation time for a bilateral normal ABUS examination was 9 min. Conclusion Observer agreement was higher and all radiologists improved diagnostic performance using combined ABUS and mammography interpretation. Combined reading should be standard if ABUS is implemented in screening of women with dense breasts.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program

Purpose To compare the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) with that of digital mammography (DM) in a population-based mammographic screening program. Materials and Methods In this prospective cohort study, data from 37 185 women screened with DBT and SM and from 61 742 women screened with DM as part of a population-based screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included. Early performance measures, including recall rate due to abnormal mammographic findings, rate of screen-detected breast cancer, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of needle biopsy, histopathologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node involvement, hormonal status, Ki-67 level, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were compared in women who underwent DBT and SM screening and in those who underwent DM screening by using χ2 tests, two-sample unpaired t tests, and tests of proportions. Results Recall rates were 3.4% for DBT and SM screening and 3.3% for DM screening (P = .563). DBT and SM screening showed a significantly higher rate of screen-detected cancer compared with DM screening (9.4 vs 6.1 cancers per 1000 patients screened, respectively; P < .001). The rate of detection of tumors 10 mm or smaller was 3.2 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM and 1.8 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001), and the rate of grade 1 tumors was 3.3 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM versus 1.4 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001). On the basis of immunohistochemical analyses, rates of lymph node involvement and tumor subtypes did not differ between women who underwent DBT and SM screening and those who underwent DM screening. Conclusion DBT and SM screening increased the detection rate of histologically favorable tumors compared with that attained with DM screening.

Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality

The main purpose was to compare average glandular dose (AGD) for same-compression digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions in a population based screening program, with and without breast density stratification, as determined by automatically calculated breast density (Quantra™). Secondary, to compare AGD estimates based on measured breast density, air kerma and half value layer (HVL) to DICOM metadata based estimates. AGD was estimated for 3819 women participating in the screening trial. All received craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breasts with paired DM and DBT acquisitions. Exposure parameters were extracted from DICOM metadata. Air kerma and HVL were measured for all beam qualities used to acquire the mammograms. Volumetric breast density was estimated using Quantra™. AGD was estimated using the Dance model. AGD reported directly from the DICOM metadata was also assessed. Mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.10 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. Mean DBT/DM AGD ratio was 1.24. For fatty breasts: mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.27 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. For dense breasts: mean AGD was 1.73 and 1.79 mGy, for DM and DBT, respectively. For breasts of similar thickness, dense breasts had higher AGD for DM and similar AGD for DBT. The DBT/DM dose ratio was substantially lower for dense compared to fatty breasts (1.08 versus 1.33). The average c-factor was 1.16. Using previously published polynomials to estimate glandularity from thickness underestimated the c-factor by 5.9% on average. Mean AGD error between estimates based on measurements (air kerma and HVL) versus DICOM header data was 3.8%, but for one mammography unit as high as 7.9%. Mean error of using the AGD value reported in the DICOM header was 10.7 and 13.3%, respectively. Thus, measurement of breast density, radiation dose and beam quality can substantially affect AGD estimates.

Reflection on the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new promising technique for breast imaging based on the FFDM platform. In this narrative we share our experience of using it within a breast screening trial. The chapter commences by giving context, to understand the setting in which the trial took place. Then we reflect on the trial from a radiographer’s perspective. Finally we reflect on the trial from a radiologist’s perspective. Further information about DBT can be found in the previous Chap. 30, and also in Chap. 16.