Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2024

Introduction

Each year the interdisciplinary AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, German Gynecological Oncology Group) Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

The updated evidence-based treatment recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer have been released in March 2024.

Results and Conclusion

This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter.

Feasibility study comparing synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography for simulated first round screening in a single BreastScreen NSW centre

INTRODUCTION

While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to enhance cancer detection and reduce recall rates (RR), its integration into BreastScreen Australia for screening has been limited, in part due to perceived cost implications. This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of digital mammography (DM) compared with synthesized mammography and DBT (SM + DBT) in a first round screening context for short-term outcomes.

METHODS

Clients recalled for nonspecific density (NSD) as a single lesion by both readers at the Northern Sydney Central Coast BreastScreen service in 2019 were included. Prior images were excluded to simulate first-round screening. Eleven radiologists read DM and synthesized mammography with DBT (SM + DBT) images 4 weeks apart. Recall rates (RR), reading time, and diagnostic parameters were measured, and costs for screen reading and assessment were calculated.

RESULT

Among 65 clients studied, 13 were diagnosed with cancer, with concordant cancer recalls. SM + DBT reduced recall rates (RR), increased reading time, maintained cancer detection sensitivity, and significantly improved other diagnostic parameters, particularly false positive rates. Benign biopsy recalls remained equivalent. While SM + DBT screen reading cost was significantly higher than DM (DM AU$890 ± 186 vs SM + DBT AU$1279 ± 265; P < 0.001), the assessment cost (DM AU$29,504 ± 9427 vs SM + DBT AU$18,021 ± 5606; P < 0.001), and combined screen reading and assessment costs were significantly lower (DM AU$30,394 ± 9508 vs SM + DBT AU$19,300 ± 5721; P = 0.001). SM + DBT screen reading and assessment of 65 patients resulted in noteworthy cost savings (AU$11,094), equivalent to assessing 12 additional clients.

CONCLUSION

In first round screening, DBT yields significant cost savings by effectively reducing unnecessary recalls to assessment while maintaining diagnostic efficacy.

Mammography with deep learning for breast cancer detection

X-ray mammography is currently considered the golden standard method for breast cancer screening, however, it has limitations in terms of sensitivity and specificity. With the rapid advancements in deep learning techniques, it is possible to customize mammography for each patient, providing more accurate information for risk assessment, prognosis, and treatment planning. This paper aims to study the recent achievements of deep learning-based mammography for breast cancer detection and classification. This review paper highlights the potential of deep learning-assisted X-ray mammography in improving the accuracy of breast cancer screening. While the potential benefits are clear, it is essential to address the challenges associated with implementing this technology in clinical settings. Future research should focus on refining deep learning algorithms, ensuring data privacy, improving model interpretability, and establishing generalizability to successfully integrate deep learning-assisted mammography into routine breast cancer screening programs. It is hoped that the research findings will assist investigators, engineers, and clinicians in developing more effective breast imaging tools that provide accurate diagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity for breast cancer.

A cadaveric breast cancer tissue phantom for phase-contrast X-ray imaging applications

BACKGROUND

As mammography X-ray imaging technologies advance and provide elevated contrast in soft tissues, a need has developed for reliable imaging phantoms for use in system design and component calibration. In advanced imaging modalities such as refraction-based methods, it is critical that developed phantoms capture the biological details seen in clinical precancerous and cancerous cases while minimizing artifacts that may be caused due to phantom production. This work presents the fabrication of a breast tissue imaging phantom from cadaveric breast tissue suitable for use in both transmission and refraction-enhanced imaging systems.

METHODS

Human cancer cell tumors were grown orthotopically in nude athymic mice and implanted into the fixed tissue while maintaining the native tumor/adipose tissue interface.

RESULTS

The resulting human-murine tissue hybrid phantom was mounted on a clear acrylic housing for absorption and refraction X-ray imaging. Digital breast tomosynthesis was also performed.

CONCLUSION

Both attenuation-based imaging and refraction-based imaging of the phantom are presented to confirm the suitability of this phantom's use in both imaging modalities.

Digital Tomosynthesis: Review of Current Literature and Its Impact on Diagnostic Bronchoscopy

Bronchoscopy has garnered increased popularity in the biopsy of peripheral lung lesions. The development of navigational guided bronchoscopy systems along with radial endobronchial ultrasound (REBUS) allows clinicians to access and sample peripheral lesions. The development of robotic bronchoscopy improved localization of targets and diagnostic accuracy. Despite such technological advancements, published diagnostic yield remains lower compared to computer tomography (CT)-guided biopsy. The discordance between the real-time location of peripheral lesions and anticipated location from preplanned navigation software is often cited as the main variable impacting accurate biopsies. The utilization of cone beam CT (CBCT) with navigation-based bronchoscopy has been shown to assist with localizing targets in real-time and improving biopsy success. The resources, costs, and radiation associated with CBCT remains a hindrance in its wider adoption. Recently, digital tomosynthesis (DT) platforms have been developed as an alternative for real-time imaging guidance in peripheral lung lesions. In North America, there are several commercial platforms with distinct features and adaptation of DT. Early studies show the potential improvement in peripheral lesion sampling with DT. Despite the results of early observational studies, the true impact of DT-based imaging devices for peripheral lesion sampling cannot be determined without further prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2023

Background

Each year the interdisciplinary Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO), German Gynecological Oncology Group Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer.

Summary

The updated evidence-based treatment recommendation for early and metastatic breast cancer has been released in March 2023.

Key Messages

This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter.

Radiomics nomogram based on digital breast tomosynthesis: preoperative evaluation of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast carcinoma

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish a radiomics nomogram model based on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images, to predict the status of axillary lymph nodes (ALN) in patients with breast carcinoma.

METHODS

The data of 120 patients with confirmed breast carcinoma, including 49 cases with axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM), were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The dataset was randomly divided into a training group consisting of 84 patients (37 with ALNM) and a validation group comprising 36 patients (12 with ALNM). Clinical information was collected for all cases, and radiomics features were extracted from DBT images. Feature selection was performed to develop the Radscore model. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were employed to identify independent risk factors for constructing both the clinical model and nomogram model. To evaluate the performance of these models, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discriminatory improvement (IDI) were conducted.

RESULTS

The clinical model identified tumor margin and DBT_reported_LNM as independent risk factors, while the Radscore model was constructed using 9 selected radiomics features. Incorporating tumor margin, DBT_reported_LNM, and Radscore, the radiomics nomogram model exhibited superior performance with AUC values of 0.933 and 0.920 in both datasets, respectively. The NRI and IDI showed a significant improvement, suggesting that the Radscore may serve as a useful biomarker for predicting ALN status.

CONCLUSION

The radiomics nomogram based on DBT demonstrated effective preoperative prediction performance for ALNM in patients with breast cancer.

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Negative Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The best supplemental breast cancer screening modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breast and negative mammogram remains to be determined. Purpose To conduct systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of the most common available supplemental screening modalities in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer in patients with dense breasts and mammography with negative findings. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted until March 12, 2020, in Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Observational Studies. Incremental cancer detection rate (CDR); positive predictive value of recall (PPV1); positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3); and interval CDRs of supplemental imaging modalities, digital breast tomosynthesis, handheld US, automated breast US, and MRI in non-high-risk patients with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer were reviewed. Data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis and two-sided metaregression analyses comparing each imaging modality metrics were performed (PROSPERO; CRD42018080402). Results Twenty-two studies reporting 261 233 screened patients were included. Of 132 166 screened patients with dense breast and mammography negative for cancer who met inclusion criteria, a total of 541 cancers missed at mammography were detected with these supplemental modalities. Metaregression models showed that MRI was superior to other supplemental modalities in CDR (incremental CDR, 1.52 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.74, 2.33; P < .001), including invasive CDR (invasive CDR, 1.31 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.57, 2.06; P < .001), and in situ disease (rate of ductal carcinoma in situ, 1.91 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 0.10, 3.72; P < .04). No differences in PPV1 and PPV3 were identified. The limited number of studies prevented assessment of interval cancer metrics. Excluding MRI, no statistically significant difference in any metrics were identified among the remaining imaging modalities. Conclusion The pooled data showed that MRI was the best supplemental imaging modality in women at average risk or intermediate risk for breast cancer with dense breasts and mammography negative for cancer. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Performance of Wide-Angle Tomosynthesis with Synthetic Mammography in Comparison to Full Field Digital Mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test for superiority of wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography (Insight 2D) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, twenty readers interpreted 350 screening and diagnostic cases of wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus Insight 2D and FFDM in two separate reading sessions separated by at least a 6-week washout period. Breast-level estimates of the area under the curve and sensitivity along with subject-level recall rate were measured and compared between wide-angle DBT plus Insight 2D and FFDM. The same measures were also assessed for dense breasts. A hierarchical analysis plan was used to control the study's type I error rate at 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean breast-level area under the curve for distinguishing breasts with cancer from non-cancer breasts was 0.893 with DBT plus Insight 2D versus 0.837 with FFDM, showing superiority of DBT plus Insight 2D (p < 0.001). Breast-level sensitivity was significantly superior for DBT plus Insight 2D in comparison to FFDM (0.852 vs. 0.805, p = 0.043). Subject-level recall rate for DBT plus Insight 2D was significantly lower in comparison to FFDM (0.344 vs. 0.473, p < 0.001). For dense breasts, the readers' accuracy with DBT plus Insight 2D was superior to their accuracy with FFDM (0.875 vs. 0.830, p = 0.026), and their recall rate was significantly lower for DBT plus Insight 2D in comparison to FFDM (0.338 vs. 0.441, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Reader performance with wide-angle DBT plus Insight 2D is superior to that with FFDM, showing significantly higher breast-level accuracy and sensitivity and significantly lower recall rates.

Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting.

METHODS

We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis.

RESULTS

The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels.

CONCLUSIONS

AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.

The Role of Calcium in Non-Invasively Imaging Breast Cancer: An Overview of Current and Modern Imaging Techniques

The landscape of breast cancer diagnostics has significantly evolved over the past decade. With these changes, it is possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of both benign and malignant breast calcifications. The biochemistry of breast cancer and calcifications are thoroughly examined to describe the potential to characterize better different calcium salts composed of calcium carbonate, calcium oxalate, or calcium hydroxyapatite and their associated prognostic implications. Conventional mammographic imaging techniques are compared to available ones, including breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography. Additional methods in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are discussed. The concept of using magnetic resonance imaging particularly magnetic susceptibility to characterize the biochemical characteristics of calcifications is described. As we know magnetic resonance imaging is safe and there is no ionization radiation. Experimental findings through magnetic resonance susceptibility imaging techniques are discussed to illustrate the potential for integrating this technique to provide a quantitative assessment of magnetic susceptibility. Under the right magnetic resonance imaging conditions, a distinct phase variability was isolated amongst different types of calcium salts.

Artificial intelligence for digital breast tomosynthesis: Impact on diagnostic performance, reading times, and workload in the era of personalized screening

The ultimate goals of the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are the reduction of reading times, the increase of diagnostic performance, and the reduction of interval cancer rates. In this review, after outlining the journey from computer-aided detection/diagnosis systems to AI applied to digital mammography (DM), we summarize the results of studies where AI was applied to DBT, noting that long-term advantages of DBT screening and its crucial ability to decrease the interval cancer rate are still under scrutiny. AI has shown the capability to overcome some shortcomings of DBT in the screening setting by improving diagnostic performance and by reducing recall rates (from -2 % to -27 %) and reading times (up to -53 %, with an average 20 % reduction), but the ability of AI to reduce interval cancer rates has not yet been clearly investigated. Prospective validation is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness and real-world impact of AI models assisting DBT interpretation, especially in large-scale studies with low breast cancer prevalence. Finally, we focus on the incoming era of personalized and risk-stratified screening that will first see the application of contrast-enhanced breast imaging to screen women with extremely dense breasts. As the diagnostic advantage of DBT over DM was concentrated in this category, we try to understand if the application of AI to DM in the remaining cohorts of women with heterogeneously dense or non-dense breast could close the gap in diagnostic performance between DM and DBT, thus neutralizing the usefulness of AI application to DBT.

Radiomics Analysis on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Preoperative Evaluation of Lymphovascular Invasion Status in Invasive Breast Cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To develop a digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-based radiomics nomogram for preoperative evaluation of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status in patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 135 patients with pathologically confirmed IBC who underwent preoperative DBT from July 2018 to May 2020 were retrospectively enrolled and randomized into the training and validation sets. Radiomics feature extraction was performed on the volume of interest (VOI) manually outlined. A four-step algorithmic was applied to screen the features with the highest predictive power in the training set for constructing the radiomics signature and calculating the correspondent radiomics score (Rad-score). Logistic regression analyses were utilized to develop a combined radiomics model that incorporated the DBT-reported clinicoradiological semantic features and Rad-score, which was visualized as a radiomics nomogram.

RESULTS

The percentage of LVI-positive patients was 60.2% and 59.5% in the training and validation sets, respectively. The radiomics signature was constructed based on nine features selected from the 1218 radiomics features extracted. Higher Rad-score, maximum tumor diameter, and spiculate margin were independent risk factors for LVI. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the radiomics nomogram were 0.905, 72.7%, and 94.6% in the training set, and 0.835, 80.0%, and 76.5% in the validation set, respectively; this data was higher than models incorporating clinicoradiological semantic features alone or the radiomics signature in both sets.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative DBT-based combined radiomic nomogram could be a potential biomarker for LVI in patients with IBC.

Tumor volume doubling time estimated from digital breast tomosynthesis mammograms distinguishes invasive breast cancers from benign lesions

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether lesion size metrics on consecutive screening mammograms could predict malignant invasive carcinoma versus benign lesion outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed suspicious screen-detected lesions confirmed by biopsy to be invasive breast cancers or benign that were visible on current and in-retrospect prior screening mammograms performed with digital breast tomosynthesis from 2017 to 2020. Four experienced radiologists recorded mammogram dates, breast density, lesion type, lesion diameter, and morphology on current and prior exams. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association of invasive breast cancer outcome with lesion size metrics such as maximum dimension, average dimension, volume, and tumor volume doubling time (TVDT).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients with invasive ductal carcinoma or invasive lobular carcinoma and 40 patients with benign lesions were identified. The mean TVDT was significantly shorter for invasive breast cancers compared to benign lesions (0.84 vs. 2.5 years; p = 0.0025). Patients with a TVDT of less than 1 year were shown to have an odds ratio of invasive cancer of 6.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.18-18.43). Logistic regression adjusted for age, lesion maximum dimension, and lesion volume demonstrated that shorter TVDT was the size variable significantly associated with invasive cancer outcome.

CONCLUSION

Invasive breast cancers detected on current and in-retrospect prior screening mammograms are associated with shorter TVDT compared to benign lesions. If confirmed to be sufficiently predictive of benignity in larger studies, lesions visible on mammograms which in comparison to prior exams have longer TVDTs could potentially avoid additional imaging and/or biopsy.

KEY POINTS

• We propose tumor volume doubling time as a measure to distinguish benign from invasive breast cancer lesions. • Logistic regression results summarized the utility of the odds ratio in retrospective clinical mammography data.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Older Women

BACKGROUND

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women.

OBJECTIVE

To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015.

MAIN MEASURES

Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders.

KEY RESULTS

Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

Differential detection by breast density for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens.

Methods

We searched six databases (2009–2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast density. Meta-analysis was performed to pool incremental CDR and recall rate for DBT (versus DM) for high- and low-density (dichotomised based on BI-RADS) and within-study differences in incremental estimates between high- and low-density. Screening settings (European/US) were compared.

Results

Pooled within-study difference in incremental CDR for high- versus low-density was 1.0/1000 screens (95% CI: 0.3, 1.6; p = 0.003). Estimates were not significantly different in US (0.6/1000; 95% CI: 0.0, 1.3; p = 0.05) and European (1.9/1000; 95% CI: 0.3, 3.5; p = 0.02) settings (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). For incremental recall rate, within-study differences between density subgroups differed by setting (p < 0.001). Pooled incremental recall was less in high- versus low-density screens (−0.9%; 95% CI: −1.4%, −0.4%; p < 0.001) in US screening, and greater (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.3%; p = 0.001) in European screening.

Conclusions

DBT has differential incremental cancer detection and recall by breast density. Although incremental CDR is greater in high-density, a substantial proportion of additional cancers is likely to be detected in low-density screens. Our findings may assist screening programmes considering DBT for density-tailored screening.

Structured reporting of x-ray mammography in the first diagnosis of breast cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal

Background

Radiology is an essential tool in the management of a patient. The aim of this manuscript was to build structured report (SR) Mammography based in Breast Cancer.

Methods

A working team of 16 experts (group A) was composed to create a SR for Mammography Breast Cancer. A further working group of 4 experts (group B), blinded to the activities of the group A, was composed to assess the quality and clinical usefulness of the SR final draft. Modified Delphi process was used to assess level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.

Results

The final SR version was built by including n = 2 items in Personal Data, n = 4 items in Setting, n = 2 items in Comparison with previous breast examination, n = 19 items in Anamnesis and clinical context; n = 10 items in Technique; n = 1 item in Radiation dose; n = 5 items Parenchymal pattern; n = 28 items in Description of the finding; n = 12 items in Diagnostic categories and Report and n = 1 item in Conclusions. The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 and 807 in the second round. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.82 in the second round. About the quality evaluation, the overall mean score of the experts was 3.3. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.90.

Conclusions

Structured reporting improves the quality, clarity and reproducibility of reports across departments, cities, countries and internationally and will assist patient management and improve breast health care and facilitate research.

The measurement of entrance surface dose using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for determining average glandular dose in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurement and simulation study

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs), nanoDots, for the determination of an average glandular dose (AGD) with a specific digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) system, whereas the X-ray tube was fixed (2D mode) and moved (3D mode). The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was measured by placing the nanoDots on the surface of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom with 25, 28, and 34 kV W/Rh techniques. The experimental setup of the ESAK measurement was simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation code to determine the ESAK and the backscatter factor (BSF). The AGD was calculated by dividing the ESAK values over the corresponding BSF factors for each PMMA phantom thickness and multiplying the AGD conversion factors. The AGD determination by the nanoDots variated within ±5% for both 2D and 3D modes, compared to those determined using an ionization chamber. The results were similarly observed for the simulation, except for the 25 kV on the 3D mode. Regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency technical reports series number 457, the nanoDots can be used for the AGD determination with realistic 2D and 3D image acquisitions based on ±10% uncertainty.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) in breast cancer screening is associated with higher cancer detection and lower recalls compared to digital mammography (DM) alone: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) in screening is problematic due to increased radiation by the double exposure. Synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) calculated from DBT datasets at no additional dose appears a sensible alternative compared to adding DM. This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on screening performance outcomes in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone.

Methods

PubMed was searched from January 1, 2010, to September 2, 2020. Studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone in breast cancer screening were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were estimated for cancer detection rates (CDR), recall rates, interval cancer rates (ICR), biopsy rates, and positive predictive values for recalls (PPV-1), for biopsies recommended (PPV-2), and for biopsies performed (PPV-3). Sensitivity analyses were performed using the leave-one-out approach. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool.

Results

Twelve papers covering 414,281 women were included from 766 records identified. CDR is increased ([RR, 95% CI] 1.35, 1.20–1.52), recall rates are decreased (0.79, 0.64–0.98), and PPV-1 is increased (1.69, 1.45–1.96) when using DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone. ICR and biopsy rates did not differ, but PPV-2 respectively PPV-3 increased with DBT plus s2D (1.57, 1.08–2.28 respectively 1.36, 1.17–1.58). Overall RoB of studies was assessed to be low.

Conclusion

Results show improved diagnostic outcomes with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone and underline the value of DBT in combination with s2D in breast cancer screening.

Key Points

• DBT plus s2D is associated with higher CDR, lower recall rates, and a higher PPV-1 compared to DM alone in breast cancer screening.

• No differences in biopsy rates were found between screening modalities, but PPV-2 and PPV-3 were higher in women screened with DBT plus s2D compared to DM alone.

• We identified inconsistent results of ICR in two studies comparing DBT plus s2D to DM alone—resulting in no differences when pooling ICR in meta-analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08308-8.

Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects

Dedicated breast CT is an emerging 3D isotropic imaging technology for breast, which overcomes the limitations of 2D compression mammography and limited angle tomosynthesis while providing some of the advantages of magnetic resonance imaging. This first installment in a 2-part review describes the evolution of dedicated breast CT beginning with a historical perspective and progressing to the present day. Moreover, it provides an overview of state-of-the-art technology. Particular emphasis is placed on technical limitations in scan protocol, radiation dose, breast coverage, patient comfort, and image artifact. Proposed methods of how to address these technical challenges are also discussed. KEY POINTS: • Advantages of breast CT include no tissue overlap, improved patient comfort, rapid acquisition, and concurrent assessment of microcalcifications and contrast enhancement. • Current clinical and prototype dedicated breast CT systems differ in acquisition modes, imaging techniques, and detector types. • There are still details to be decided regarding breast CT techniques, such as scan protocol, radiation dose, breast coverage, patient comfort, and image artifact.

Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detecting Breast Cancer in the Diagnostic Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods

Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies.

Results

Twenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73–0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses.

Conclusion

Use of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Interval and Subsequent Round Breast Cancer in a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screening

Background Prevalent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has shown higher cancer detection rates and lower recall rates compared with those of digital mammography (DM). However, data are limited on rates and histopathologic tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers for DBT. Purpose To follow women randomized to screening with DBT or DM and to investigate rates and tumor characteristics of interval and subsequent round screen-detected cancers. Materials and Methods To-Be is a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcome of DBT and DM in organized breast cancer screening. The trial included 28 749 women, with 22 306 women returning for subsequent DBT screening 2 years later (11 201 and 11 105 originally screened with DBT and DM, respectively). Differences in rates, means, and distribution of histopathologic tumor characteristics between women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM were evaluated with Z tests, t tests, and χ² tests. Relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs was calculated for the cancer rates. Results Interval cancer rates were 1.4 per 1000 screens (20 of 14 380; 95% CI: 0.9, 2.1) for DBT versus 2.0 per 1000 screens (29 of 14 369; 95% CI: 1.4, 2.9; P = .20) for DM. The rates of subsequent round screen-detected cancer were 8.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 6.6, 10.0) for women originally screened with DBT and 9.1 per 1000 (95% CI: 7.4, 11.0; P = .43) for women screened with DM. The distribution of tumor characteristics did not differ between groups for either interval or subsequent screen-detected cancer. The RR of interval cancer was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.22; P = .20) for DBT versus DM, whereas RR of subsequent screen-detected cancer for women prevalently screened with DBT versus DM was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.19; P = .43). Conclusion Rates of interval or subsequent round screen-detected cancers and their tumor characteristics did not differ between women originally screened with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography. The analysis suggests that the benefits of prevalent DBT screening did not come at the expense of worse downstream screening performance measures in a population-based screening program. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Taourel in this issue.

Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography

PURPOSE

To compare the distribution of mammographic features among women recalled for further assessment after screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM), and to assess associations between features and final outcome of the screening, including immunohistochemical subtypes of the tumour.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed in Bergen, Norway, and included 28,749 women, of which 1015 were recalled due to mammographic findings. Mammographic features were classified according to a modified BI-RADS-scale. The distribution were compared using 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Asymmetry was the most common feature of all recalls, 24.3 % (108/444) for DBT and 38.9 % (222/571) for DM. Spiculated mass was most common for breast cancer after screening with DBT (36.8 %, 35/95, 95 %CI: 27.2-47.4) while calcifications (23.0 %, 20/87, 95 %CI: 14.6-33.2) was the most frequent after DM. Among women screened with DBT, 0.13 % (95 %CI: 0.08-0.21) had benign outcome after recall due to indistinct mass while the percentage was 0.28 % (95 %CI: 0.20-0.38) for DM. The distributions were 0.70 % (95 %CI: 0.57-0.85) versus 1.46 % (95 %CI: 1.27-1.67) for asymmetry and 0.24 % (95 %CI: 0.16-0.33) versus 0.54 % (95 %CI: 0.43-0.68) for obscured mass, among women screened with DBT versus DM, respectively. Spiculated mass was the most common feature among women diagnosed with non-luminal A-like cancer after DBT and after DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Spiculated mass was the dominant feature for breast cancer among women screened with DBT while calcifications was the most frequent feature for DM. Further studies exploring the clinical relevance of mammographic features visible particularly on DBT are warranted.

Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up.

METHODS

Using individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data.

FINDINGS

Four prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005).

INTERPRETATION

Although heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.

Digital breast tomosynthesis compared to diagnostic mammographic projections (including magnification) among women recalled at screening mammography: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC)

Background

Diagnostic mammography projections (DxMM) have been traditionally used in the assessment of women recalled after a suspicious screening mammogram. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reduces the tissue overlap effect, thus improving image assessment. Some studies have suggested DBT might replace DxMM with at least equivalent performance.

Objective

To evaluate the replacement of DxMM with DBT in women recalled at screening.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify diagnostic paired cohort studies or RCTs comparing DBT vs DxMM, published in English that: reported accuracy outcomes, recruited women recalled for assessment at mammography screening, and included a reference standard. Subgroup analysis was performed over lesion characteristics. We provided pooled accuracy estimates and differences between tests using a quadrivariate model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

We included ten studies that reported specificity and sensitivity. One study included 7060 women while the remaining included between 52 and 738 women. DBT compared with DxMM showed a pooled difference for the sensitivity of 2% (95% CI 1%–3%) and a pooled difference for the specificity of 6% (95%CI 2%–11%). Restricting the analysis to the six studies that included women with microcalcification lesions gave similar results. In the context of a prevalence of 21% of breast cancer (BC) in recalled women, DBT probably detects 4 (95% CI 2–6) more BC cases and has 47 (95%CI 16–87) fewer false‐positive results per 1000 assessments. The certainty of the evidence was moderate due to risk of bias.

Conclusion

The evidence in the assessment of screen‐recalled findings with DBT is sparse and of moderate certainty. DBT probably has higher sensitivity and specificity than DxMM. Women, health care providers and policymakers might value as relevant the reduction of false‐positive results and related fewer invasive diagnostic procedures with DBT, without missing BC cases.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, March 2021

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of men's experiences of pregnancy loss and commentaries on reviews focused on the effects of perineal massage on perineal trauma and air pollution and heat exposure on birth outcomes.

The INTEND 1 randomized controlled trial of duct endoscopy as an indicator of margin excision in breast conservation surgery

PURPOSE

With early detection, breast conservation surgery with adequate surgical margins is the standard of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pre-operative duct endoscopy (DE) to target surgical resection, improve adequate margins and reduce re-excision operations.

METHODS

Women with DCIS, stage I and II breast cancer suitable for breast conservation were randomized to DE-assisted wide local excision versus standard wide local excision (without DE). The primary endpoint was margin re-excision rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were: (i) volume differences of the surgical specimen; (ii) whether an extensive in situ component (EIC) influenced successful DE-guided resection.

RESULTS

78 women were randomized: 44 patients to no-DE and 34 patients to the DE group. The median age was 59 (49-65) and 56 (48-64) years in the two groups respectively with mean follow-up of 9.1 (4.2-11.1) years. There were 23 positive findings in 17 women in 30 successful DE procedures (17/30 = 56.7%). The surgical specimen volume, no-DE (17 [IQR 10-29] cm³) and DE 20 [IQR 12-28] cm³), did not differ, p = 0.377. The overall re-excision rate was 20/78 (26%), 9 (20%) and 11 (32% in the no-DE and DE groups, respectively, p = 0.233.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized clinical trial was limited by incomplete accrual. DE did not contribute to improved margin excision rates whether a target lesion was visualized or not. The presence of EIC did not improve efficacy of DE.

Value of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions with calcification: A retrospective study

PURPOSE

To assess the value of conventional ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and mammography in the diagnosis of breast lesions with calcifications.

METHODS

A total of 87 breast lesions with calcification were subjected to US, CEUS and mammography and divided into 3 groups: Group A (all cases), Group A1 (31 cases who underwent US and CEUS first followed by mammography), and Group A2 (56 cases who underwent mammography first followed by US and CEUS). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of different methods in different groups.

RESULTS

In Group A, the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of CEUS were 0.937, which were significantly higher than that of mammography (p < 0.05). In Group A1, the AUROC of CEUS were 0.842, which were not significantly different from that of US and mammography (p > 0.05). In Group A2, the AUROC of CEUS were 0.987, which were significantly higher than that of mammography and US (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on the mammography results, the combination of US and CEUS might improve the diagnostic efficacy in breast lesions with calcification.

Do we still need breast cancer screening in the era of targeted therapies and precision medicine?

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female cancer and the second cause of death among women worldwide. The 5-year relative survival rate recently improved up to 90% due to increased population coverage and women's attendance to organised mammography screening as well as to advances in therapies, especially systemic treatments. Screening attendance is associated with a mortality reduction of at least 30% and a 40% lower risk of advanced disease. The stage at diagnosis remains the strongest predictor of recurrences. Systemic treatments evolved dramatically over the last 20 years: aromatase inhibitors improved the treatment of early-stage luminal BC; targeted monoclonal antibodies changed the natural history of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2) disease; immunotherapy is currently investigated in patients with triple-negative BC; gene expression profiling is now used with the aim of personalising systemic treatments. In the era of precision medicine, it is a challenging task to define the relative contribution of early diagnosis by screening mammography and systemic treatments in determining BC survival. Estimated contributions before 2000 were 46% for screening and 54% for treatment advances and after 2000, 37% and 63%, respectively. A model showed that the 10-year recurrence rate would be 30% and 25% using respectively chemotherapy or novel treatments in the absence of screening, but would drop to 19% and 15% respectively if associated with mammography screening. Early detection per se has not a curative intent and systemic treatment has limited benefit on advanced stages. Both screening mammography and systemic therapies continue to positively contribute to BC prognosis.

Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in women attending population-based breast cancer screenings. We performed a systematic review and included controlled studies comparing DBT with digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Search strategies were applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. With moderate quality of evidence, in 1,000 screens, DBT plus digital mammography increased the overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 3 and 2 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.79, respectively). DBT plus synthetic mammography increased both overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 2 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54 and RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55, respectively). DBT did not improve recall, false positive and false negative rates. However due to heterogeneity the quality of evidence was low. For women attending population-based breast cancer screenings, DBT increases rates of overall and invasive breast cancer. There is no evidence with high or moderate quality showing that DBT compared with digital mammography decreases recall rates, as well as false positive and false negative rates.