Diagnostic Efficacy Across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts During Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women

Overview

Journal Diagnostics (Basel)

Specialty Radiology

Date 2022 Jun 24

PMID 35741287

Authors

Ibrahim Hadadi

Jillian Clarke

William Rae

Mark McEntee

Wendy Vincent

Ernest Ekpo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound across breast densities in women recalled for assessment. Methods: A total of 482 women recalled for assessment from January 2017 to December 2019 were selected for the study. Women met the inclusion criteria if they had undergone DBT, ultrasound and had confirmed biopsy results. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and AUC for DBT and ultrasound. Results: In dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (98.2% vs. 80%; p < 0.001), but lower specificity (15.4% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), PPV (61.3% vs. 71%; p = 0.04) and AUC (0.568 vs. 0.671; p = 0.001). In non-dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (99.2% vs. 84%; p < 0.001), but no differences in specificity (22% vs. 33%; p = 0.14), PPV (69.2% vs. 68.8%; p = 0.93) or AUC (0.606 vs. 0.583; p = 0.57). Around 73% (74% dense and 71% non-dense) and 77% (81% dense and 72% non-dense) of lesions assigned a RANZCR 3 by DBT and ultrasound, respectively, were benign. Conclusion: DBT has higher sensitivity, but lower specificity and PPV than ultrasound in women with dense breasts recalled for assessment. Most lesions rated RANZCR 3 on DBT and ultrasound are benign and may benefit from short interval follow-up rather than biopsy.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic Efficacy of Five Different Imaging Modalities in the Assessment of Women Recalled at Breast Screening-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Akwo J, Hadadi I, Ekpo E Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(20).

PMID: 39456600 PMC: 11505902. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16203505.

The ability of digital breast tomosynthesis to reduce additional examinations in older women.

Gharaibeh M, Alfwares A, Elobeid E, Khasawneh R, Rousan L, El-Heis M Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1276434.

PMID: 38076239 PMC: 10702740. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1276434.

Does the availability of prior mammograms improve radiologists' observer performance?-a scoping review.

Akwo J, Trieu P, Lewis S BJR Open. 2023; 5(1):20230038.

PMID: 37942498 PMC: 10630973. DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20230038.

References

Rose S, Tidwell A, Bujnoch L, Kushwaha A, Nordmann A, Sexton Jr R . Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(6):1401-8. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672. View

Sprague B, Coley R, Kerlikowske K, Rauscher G, Henderson L, Onega T . Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(3):e201759. PMC: 7292996. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1759. View

Roubidoux M, Bailey J, Wray L, Helvie M . Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology. 2003; 230(1):42-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2301020589. View

Lourenco A, Barry-Brooks M, Baird G, Tuttle A, Mainiero M . Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2014; 274(2):337-42. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140317. View

Gufler H, Buitrago-Tellez C, Madjar H, Allmann K, Uhl M . Ultrasound demonstration of mammographically detected microcalcifications. Acta Radiol. 2000; 41(3):217-21. DOI: 10.1080/028418500127345370. View

Garcia-Barquin P, Paramo M, Elizalde A, Pina L, Etxano J, Fernandez-Montero A . The effect of the amount of peritumoral adipose tissue in the detection of additional tumors with digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound. Acta Radiol. 2017; 58(6):645-651. DOI: 10.1177/0284185116668211. View

Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J . Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002; 225(1):165-75. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667. View

DeLong E, Delong D, Clarke-Pearson D . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. View

Skaane P . How Can We Reduce Unnecessary Procedures after Screening Mammography?. Radiology. 2019; 291(2):318-319. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190324. View

10.

Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S . Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(1):184-90. PMC: 4666282. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3. View

11.

Hooley R, Scoutt L, Philpotts L . Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013; 268(3):642-59. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121606. View

12.

Li J, Zhang H, Jiang H, Guo X, Zhang Y, Qi D . Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2019; 17:82-89. PMC: 6317146. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2018.12.004. View

13.

Hakim C, Catullo V, Chough D, Ganott M, Kelly A, Shinde D . Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms. Radiology. 2015; 276(1):65-72. PMC: 4485831. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.15142009. View

14.

Houssami N, Lockie D, Clemson M, Pridmore V, Taylor D, Marr G . Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-based screening in BreastScreen Victoria. Med J Aust. 2019; 211(8):357-362. DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50320. View

15.

Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fanto C, Ostillio L . Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(8):1105-1113. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2. View

16.

Houssami N, Skaane P . Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast. 2013; 22(2):101-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017. View

17.

Gonzalez-Huebra I, Elizalde A, Garcia-Baizan A, Calvo M, Ezponda A, Martinez-Regueira F . Is it worth to perform preoperative MRI for breast cancer after mammography, tomosynthesis and ultrasound?. Magn Reson Imaging. 2018; 57:317-322. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2018.12.005. View

18.

McCarthy A, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan K, Heitjan D, Schnall M . Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106(11). PMC: 4271033. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju316. View

19.

Brennan P, Ganesan A, Eckstein M, Ekpo E, Tapia K, Mello-Thoms C . Benefits of Independent Double Reading in Digital Mammography: A Theoretical Evaluation of All Possible Pairing Methodologies. Acad Radiol. 2018; 26(6):717-723. PMC: 7184882. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.06.017. View

20.

Wang Y, Chen H, Li N, Ren J, Zhang K, Dai M . Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Results From a Population-Based Cancer Screening Program in China. Front Oncol. 2019; 9:286. PMC: 6491776. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00286. View