Sara Bundred

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.

Same task, same observers, different values: the problem with visual assessment of breast density

The proportion of radio-opaque fibroglandular tissue in a mammographic image of the breast is a strong and modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Subjective, area-based estimates made by expert observers provide a simple and efficient way of measuring breast density within a screening programme, but the degree of variability may render the reliable identification of women at increased risk impossible. This study examines the repeatability of visual assessment of percent breast density by expert observers. Five consultant radiologists and two breast physicians, all with at least two years’ experience in mammographic density assessment, were presented with 100 digital mammogram cases for which they had estimated density at least 12 months previously. Estimates of percent density were made for each mammographic view and recorded on a printed visual analogue scale. The level of agreement between the two sets of estimates was assessed graphically using Bland-Altman plots. All but one observer had a mean difference of less than 6 percentage points, while the largest mean difference was 14.66 percentage points. The narrowest 95% limits of agreement for the differences were -11.15 to 17.35 and the widest were -13.95 to 40.43. Coefficients of repeatability ranged from 14.40 to 38.60. Although visual assessment of breast density has been shown to be strongly associated with cancer risk, the lack of agreement shown here between repeat assessments of the same images by the same observers questions the reliability of using visual assessment to identify women at high risk or to detect moderate changes in breast density over time.

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.

PB.17: Inter-observer agreement in visual analogue scale assessment of percentage breast density

Breast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer. Assessment of density at screening could help identify women at increased risk of cancer, who may benefit from screening with shorter intervals or different modalities. Visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment of percentage density by observers is straightforward to implement and strongly associated with cancer risk. However, using VAS assessment for stratification would require reproducibility between observers. We examine agreement between observers assessing VAS density.

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.

PB.18: Factors affecting breast density assessment

High breast density, where there is a relatively large proportion of fibroglandular tissue in the breast, is associated with increased risk of developing cancer. There are several methods of assessing breast density from mammograms, and as these sometimes disagree about whether density is high (or low), we have investigated potential causes of disagreement.

Impact of full-field digital mammography on diagnostic work-up and surgical management of mammographic microcalcification

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) increases detection of benign and malignant calcified breast lesions. Accurate nonoperative diagnosis of malignant impalpable breast lesions minimises numbers of therapeutic surgical procedures. Correct diagnosis of malignant mammographic microcalcification (MM) is important because upgraded lesions require repeat surgical procedures in 57% of cases (NHSBSP Audit 2012).

Repeatability of breast density visual assessment.

Breast density, measured as the proportion of the breast occupied by fibroglandular tissue in a mammogram, is a strong and modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Area-based estimates made by expert observers are a practical approach, but are subjective. Here we investigate repeatability of visual assessment of percentage breast density.