Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis

Axilla View of Mammography in Preoperative Axillary Lymph Node Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore a novel position of mammography named axilla view in axillary lymph node (ALN) evaluation in breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were prospectively enrolled and scheduled for mammography before surgery. Investigated imaging patterns included mediolateral oblique (2D-MLO) and axilla view (2D-axilla) of mammography, and axilla view of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-axilla). The correlation of ALN numbers between imaging and pathology was analyzed. Diagnostic performance was analyzed via AUC.

RESULTS

75 patients were included. A larger and clearer axillary region was displayed in axilla view. The total number of ALNs detected under 2D/3D-axilla view was significantly higher than that under 2D-MLO view (4.6 vs. 2.5, P < .001; 5.6 vs. 4.6, P = .034). Correlations between number of positive ALNs detected under 2D/3D-axilla view and pathologically confirmed metastatic ALNs were stronger than 2D-MLO view (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.7084,0.7044 and 0.4744). The proportion of cases with ≥5 positive ALNs detected under 3D-axilla view was significantly higher than that under 2D-MLO (38.2% vs. 14.7%, P = .028). The overweight and obese group showed a higher AUC value than the underweight and lean group in ALN evaluation, although not significantly (2D-MLO: 0.7643 vs. 0.6458, P = .2656; 2D-axilla: 0.8083 vs. 0.6586, P = .1522; 3D-axilla: 0.8045 vs. 0.6615, P = .1874). This difference was more pronounced in axilla view.

CONCLUSION

Axilla view exhibited advantages over conventional MLO view in the extent of axilla displayed by mammography in breast cancer. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed.

Synthetic Mammography: Benefits, Drawbacks, and Pitfalls

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) allows three-dimensional assessment of breast tissue; however, DBT requires a two-dimensional (2D) image for comparison with prior mammograms and accurate interpretation of calcifications. Traditionally, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has been performed after the DBT image acquisition. Synthetic mammography (SM), the 2D reconstruction of the tomosynthesis slice dataset, has been designed to replace FFDM. Advantages of SM include decreased image acquisition time and decreased radiation exposure, with maintained or improved screening performance metrics. Because SM algorithms give extra weight to lesion-like characteristics (eg, calcifications and architectural distortions), they may enable increased visibility of these characteristics relative to that at FFDM. Although SM algorithms were designed to improve lesion identification, they have led to varied outcomes in studies reported in the literature. Compared with FFDM, SM has been reported to be associated with a higher false-positive rate for calcifications, decreased conspicuity of asymmetries, lower breast density assessments, and imaging artifacts (eg, metallic artifact, bright-band artifact, blurring of the axilla, and truncation artifact). The authors review the literature on SM, including its implementation, benefits, and artifacts. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Comparison of prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsies with secondary analysis of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions

OBJECTIVES

Compare prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB) in a community-practice setting and review outcomes of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions (AD).

METHODS

Consecutive biopsies performed at two community-based breast centers from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Technical details of each procedure and patient outcomes were recorded. Separate analyses were performed for ultrasound-occult ADs. Two sample t-tests and Fisher's exact test facilitated comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 1133 patients underwent 369 prone DM-VABB, 324 prone DBT-VABB, 437 upright DM-VABB, and 123 upright DBT-VABB with 99.2%, 100%, 99.3%, and 99.2% success, respectively (p-values > 0.25). Mean lesion targeting times were greater for prone biopsy (minutes: 6.94 prone DM-VABB, 8.54 prone DBT-VABB, 5.52 upright DM-VABB, and 5.51 upright DBT-VABB; p-values < 0.001), yielding longer total prone procedure times for prone biopsy (p < 0.001). Compared to DM-VABB, DBT-VABB used fewer exposures (p < 0.001) and more commonly targeted AD, asymmetries, or masses (p < 0.001). Malignancy rates were similar between procedures: prone DM-VABB 22.4%, prone DBT-VABB 21.9%, upright DM-VABB 22.8%, and upright DBT-VABB 17.2% (p-values > 0.19). One hundred forty of the 1133 patients underwent 145 biopsies for ultrasound-occult AD (143 DBT-VABB and 2 DM-VABB). Biopsy yielded 27 malignancies and 47 high-risk lesions (74 of 145, 51%). Malignancy rate was 20.7% after surgical upgrade of one benign-discordant and two high-risk lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

All biopsy procedure types were extremely successful. The 20.7% malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult AD confirms a management recommendation for tissue diagnosis. Upright biopsy was faster than prone biopsy, and DBT-VABB used fewer exposures than DM-VABB.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results highlight important differences between prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB. Moreover, the high likelihood of malignancy for ultrasound-occult AD will provide confidence in recommending tissue diagnosis in lieu of observation or clinical follow-up.

KEY POINTS

• Upright and prone stereotactic and tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies were safe and effective in the community-practice setting. • The malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult architectural distortion of 20.7% confirms the management recommendation for biopsy. • Upright procedures were faster than prone procedures, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy used fewer exposures than stereotactic biopsy.

Mammography and Decision Aid Use for Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women

INTRODUCTION

Decision aids for breast cancer screening are increasingly being used by physicians, but the association between physician practice decision-aid use and mammography rates remains uncertain. Using national data, this study examines the association between practice-level decision-aid use and mammography use among older women.

METHODS

Physician practice responses to the 2017/2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (n=1,236) were linked to 2016 and 2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary data from eligible beneficiaries (n=439,684) aged 65-74 years. In 2021, multivariable generalized linear models estimated the association of practice decision-aid use for breast cancer screening and advanced health information technology functions with mammography use, controlling for practice and beneficiary characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.1% of eligible beneficiaries had a screening mammogram, and 37.3% of physician practices routinely used decision aids for breast cancer screening. In adjusted analyses, advanced health information technology functions (OR=1.19, p=0.04) were associated with mammography use, but practice use of decision aids was not (OR=0.95, p=0.21). Beneficiary clinical and socioeconomic characteristics, including race, comorbidities, Medicare and Medicaid eligibility, and median household income were more strongly associated with mammography use than practice-level decision-aid use or advanced health information technology functions.

CONCLUSIONS

Health information technology‒enabled automation of mammography reminders and other advanced health information technology functions may support mammography, whereas breast cancer decision aids may reduce patients' propensities to be screened through the alignment of their preferences and screening decision. More resources may be needed for decision aids to be routinely implemented to improve solicitation of patient preferences and targeting of mammography services.

Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities

BACKGROUND

We evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity.

METHODS

This cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Among non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities.

IMPACT

Diagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects.

Synthetic Mammography: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks in Clinical Use

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely adopted as a breast cancer screening tool, demonstrating decreased recall rates and other improved screening performance metrics when compared to digital mammography (DM) alone. Drawbacks of DBT when added to 2D DM include the increased radiation dose and longer examination time. Synthetic mammography (SM), a 2D reconstruction from the tomosynthesis slices, has been introduced to eliminate the need for a separate acquisition of 2D DM. Data show that the replacement of 2D DM by SM, when used with DBT, maintains the benefits of DBT, such as decreased recall rates, improved cancer detection rates, and similar positive predictive values. Key differences between SM and 2D DM include how the image is acquired, assessment of breast density, and visualization of mammographic findings, such as calcifications. Although SM is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to be non-inferior when used with DBT, concerns surrounding SM include image quality and artifacts. The purpose of this review article is to review the benefits, drawbacks, and screening performance metrics of SM versus DBT.

The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to perform a test object-based comparison of the imaging performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic mammography (SM).

METHODS

Two test objects were used, the CDMAM and the L1-structured phantom. Small-detail detectability was assessed using CDMAM and the microcalcification simulating specks in the L1-structured background. Detection of spiculated and non-spiculated mass-like objects was assessed using the L1 phantom. Six different systems were included: Amulet Innovality (Fujifilm), Senographe Pristina (GEHC), 3Dimensions (Hologic), Giotto Class (IMS), Clarity 2D/3D (Planmed), and Mammomat Revelation (Siemens). Images were acquired under automatic exposure control (AEC) and at adjusted levels of AEC/2 and 2 × AEC level. Threshold gold thickness (T_tr ) was established for the 0.13-mm-diameter CDMAM discs. Threshold diameters for the calcifications (d_{tr_c} ), the spiculated masses (d_{tr_sm} ), and for the non-spiculated masses (d_{tr_nsm} ) were established. The threshold condition was defined as the thickness or diameter for a 62.5% correct score.

RESULTS

T_tr for DM was generally superior to DBT, which in turn was superior to SM, but for most systems, these differences between modes were not significant. For L1, no significant differences in d_{tr_c} were found between DM and DBT. The increase in d_{tr_c} from DM to SM at AEC dose was 1%, 19%, 11%, 14%, 46%, and 27% for the Fujifilm, GEHC, Hologic, IMS, Planmed, and Siemens, respectively, indicating significantly poorer performance for all vendors except for Fujifilm, Hologic, and IMS. For both mass types, DBT performed better than SM, while SM showed no significant difference with DM (except for Fujifilm spiculated masses). The dose had an impact on small-detail detectability for both phantoms but did not influence the detection of either mass type.

CONCLUSIONS

Both phantoms indicated potentially reduced small-detail detectability for SM versus DM and DBT and should therefore not be used in stand-alone mode. The L1 phantom demonstrated no significant difference in microcalcification detection between DM and DBT and also demonstrated the superiority of DBT, compared to DM for mass detection, for all six systems.

Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the screening performance of synthesized mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) plus DBT or DM alone.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 2010 to January 2021. Eligible population-based studies on breast cancer screening comparing SM/DBT with DM/DBT or DM in asymptomatic women were included. A random-effect model was used in this meta-analysis. Data were summarized as risk differences (RDs), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Thirteen studies involving 1,370,670 participants were included. Compared with DM/DBT, screening using SM/DBT had similar breast cancer detection rate (CDR) (RD = −0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.4 to 0.2, p = 0.557, I² = 0 %), but lower recall rate (RD = −0.56 %, 95 % CI = −1.03 to −0.08, p = 0.022, I² = 90 %) and lower biopsy rate (RD = −0.33 %, 95 % CI = −0.56 to −0.10, p = 0.005, I² = 78 %). Compared with DM, SM/DBT improved CDR (RD = 2.0/1000 screens, 95 % CI = 1.4 to 2.6, p < 0.001, I² = 63 %) and reduced recall rate (RD = −0.95 %, 95 % CI = −1.91 to −0.002, p = 0.049, I² = 99 %). However, SM/DBT and DM had similar interval cancer rate (ICR) (RD = 0.1/1000 screens, 95 % CI = −0.6 to 0.8, p = 0.836, I² = 71 %) and biopsy rate (RD = −0.05 %, 95 % CI = −0.35 to 0.24, p = 0.727, I² = 93 %).

Conclusions

Screening using SM/DBT has similar breast cancer detection but reduces recall and biopsy when compared with DM/DBT. SM/DBT improves CDR when compared with DM, but they have little difference in ICR. SM/DBT could replace DM/DBT in breast cancer screening to reduce radiation dose.

•

Screening using SM/DBT has similar breast cancer detection but reduces recall and biopsy when compared with DM/DBT.

•

Screening using SM/DBT improves cancer detection rate when compared with DM/DBT alone.

•

There was no significant difference in interval cancer rate between SM/DBT and DM.

•

SM/DBT could replace DM/DBT in breast cancer screening to reduce radiation dose.

Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT.

METHODS

Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p < .001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p = .003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p < .001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p = .158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant.

KEY POINTS

• Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants. • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant - likely related to sample size.

Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVE

To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy.

RESULTS

In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P < .001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics.

DISCUSSION

Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.

Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index for digital breast tomosynthesis

Background

To propose a practical and simple method to individually evaluate the average absorbed dose for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Methods

The method is based on the estimate of incident air kerma (k_a,i) on the breast surface. An analytical model was developed to calculate the k_a,i from the tube voltage, tube load, breast thickness, x-ray tube yield, and anode-filter combination. A homogeneous phantom was employed to simulate the breast in experimental measurements and to assess the dose-depth relationship. The k_a,i values were employed to calculate the “average absorbed breast dose” (2ABD) index. Four mammographic units were used to develop and test our method under many conditions close to clinical settings. The average glandular dose (AGD) calculated following the method described by Dance et al., and the 2ABD computed through our method (i.e., from the exposure parameters) were compared in a number of conditions.

Results

A good agreement was obtained between the k_a,i computed through our model and that measured under different clinical conditions: discrepancies < 6% were found in all conditions. 2ABD matches with a good accuracy the AGD for a 100% glandular-breast: the minimum, maximum, and mean differences were < 0.1%, 7%, and 2.4%, respectively; the discrepancies increase with decreasing breast glandularity.

Conclusions

The proposed model, based on only few exposure parameters, represents a simple way to individually calculate an index, 2ABD, which can be interpreted as the average absorbed dose in a homogeneous phantom, approximating a 100% glandular breast. The method could be easily implemented in any mammographic device performing DBT.