Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography

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

There are variations in the assessment pathways for women recalled at screening, and the imaging assessment pathway with the best diagnostic outcome is poorly understood. This paper examines the efficacy of five imaging modalities for the assessment of screen-recalled breast lesions. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) strategy was employed to identify studies that assessed the efficacy of imaging modalities in the assessment of lesions recalled at screening from the following eight databases: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health. Search terms included "Breast assessment" AND "Diagnostic Workup" OR "Mammography" AND "Digital Breast tomosynthesis" AND "contrast enhanced mammography and Magnetic Resonance imaging" AND "breast ultrasound". Studies that examined the performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), handheld ultrasound (HHUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screen-recalled lesions were reviewed. Meta-analyses of these studies were conducted using the MetaDisc 2.0 software package. Results: Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and examined between one and three imaging modalities. Pooled results of each imaging modality demonstrated that CEM has the highest sensitivity (95; 95% CI: 90-97) followed by MRI (93; 95% CI: 88-96), DBT (91; 95% CI: 87-94), HHUS (90; 95% CI: 86-93), and DM (85; 95% CI: 78-90). The DBT demonstrated the highest specificity (85; 95% CI: 75-91) followed by DM (77; 95% CI: 66-85), CEM (73; 95% CI: 63-81), MRI (69; 95% CI: 55-81), and HHUS (65; 95% CI: 46-80). Conclusions: The CEM, MRI, DBT, and HHUS demonstrate excellent performance in correctly identifying and classifying cancer lesions referred for diagnostic work-up, but HHUS, MRI, and CEM have a more limited ability to discriminate benign lesions than DBT and DM.

Dedicated Photon-Counting CT for Detection and Classification of Microcalcifications: An Intraindividual Comparison With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

Clinical experience regarding the use of dedicated photon-counting breast CT (PC-BCT) for diagnosis of breast microcalcifications is scarce. This study systematically compares the detection and classification of breast microcalcifications using a dedicated breast photon-counting CT, especially designed for examining the breast, in comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective intraindividual study on women with DBT screening-detected BI-RADS-4/-5 microcalcifications who underwent PC-BCT before biopsy. PC-BCT images were reconstructed with a noninterpolated spatial resolution of 0.15 × 0.15 × 0.15 mm (reconstruction mode 1 [RM-1]) and with 0.3 × 0.3 × 0.3 mm (reconstruction mode 2 [RM-2]), plus thin-slab maximum intensity projection (MIP) reconstructions. Two radiologists independently rated the detection of microcalcifications in direct comparison with DBT on a 5-point scale. The distribution and morphology of microcalcifications were then rated according to BI-RADS. The size of the smallest discernible microcalcification particle was measured. For PC-BCT, the average glandular dose was determined by Monte Carlo simulations; for DBT, the information provided by the DBT system was used.

RESULTS

Between September 2022 and July 2023, 22 participants (mean age, 61; range, 42-85 years) with microcalcifications (16 malignant; 6 benign) were included. In 2/22 with microcalcifications in the posterior region, microcalcifications were not detectable on PC-BCT, likely because they were not included in the PC-BCT volume. In the remaining 20 participants, microcalcifications were detectable. With high between-reader agreement (κ > 0.8), conspicuity of microcalcifications was rated similar for DBT and MIPs of RM-1 (mean, 4.83 ± 0.38 vs 4.86 ± 0.35) (P = 0.66), but was significantly lower (P < 0.05) for the remaining PC-BCT reconstructions: 2.11 ± 0.92 (RM-2), 2.64 ± 0.80 (MIPs of RM-2), and 3.50 ± 1.23 (RM-1). Identical distribution qualifiers were assigned for PC-BCT and DBT in 18/20 participants, with excellent agreement (κ = 0.91), whereas identical morphologic qualifiers were assigned in only 5/20, with poor agreement (κ = 0.44). The median size of smallest discernible microcalcification particle was 0.2 versus 0.6 versus 1.1 mm in DBT versus RM-1 versus RM-2 (P < 0.001), likely due to blooming effects. Average glandular dose was 7.04 mGy (PC-BCT) versus 6.88 mGy (DBT) (P = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

PC-BCT allows reliable detection of in-breast microcalcifications as long as they are not located in the posterior part of the breast and allows assessment of their distribution, but not of their individual morphology.

Reoperation rate of ductal carcinoma in situ: impact of tomosynthesis (3D) and spot magnification

BACKGROUND

Surgical planning depends on precise preoperative assessment of the radiological extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Despite different modalities used, reoperation rates for DCIS due to involved margins are high.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) on surgical reoperation rate of DCIS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective single institute study includes 157 patients with biopsy-proven pure DCIS seen on mammogram as microcalcifications and treated with breast-conserving surgery. Patients have been divided into three groups according to additional imaging performed: spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and none. All breast images (mammograms, spot magnification, tomosynthesis) were reviewed and the maximum extent of pathological microcalcifications was recorded. Radiological size was compared to final histopathological size. Reoperation rate due to inadequate margins was recorded.

RESULTS

Reoperation rates (25%) due to inadequate margins were as follows: spot (18%), tomosynthesis (27%), none (31%); P = 0.488. Spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and digital zoom of full-field digital mammography predicted similarly the final histopathological size. Reoperation group had a significantly greater preoperative radiological median size (26 mm vs. 20 mm; P = 0.014) as well as median size of disease on final histopathological report (29 mm vs. 14 mm; P < 0.001). Discrepancy between radiological and final histopathological size became greater with increasing DCIS extent.

CONCLUSION

The main factors for reoperations are DCIS size and discordance between radiological and histopathological sizes. The use of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) did not reduce reoperation rate.

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.

Performance evaluation of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer using pathology as gold standard: an institutional experience

Background

Mammography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosing breast cancer in women more than 40 years of age. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), when supplemented with digital mammography (DM), is useful for increasing the sensitivity and improving BIRADS characterization by removing the overlapping effect. Ultrasonography (US), when combined with the above combination, further increases the sensitivity and diagnostic confidence. Since most of the research regarding tomosynthesis has been in screening settings, we wanted to quantify its role in diagnostic mammography. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of DM alone vs. DM combined with DBT vs. DM plus DBT and ultrasound in diagnosing malignant breast neoplasms with the gold standard being histopathology or cytology.

Results

A prospective study of 1228 breasts undergoing diagnostic or screening mammograms was undertaken at our institute. Patients underwent 2 views DM, single view DBT and US. BIRADS category was updated after each step. Final categorization was made with all three modalities combined and pathological correlation was done for those cases in which suspicious findings were detected, i.e. 256 cases. Diagnosis based on pathology was done for 256 cases out of which 193 (75.4%) were malignant and the rest 63 (24.6%) were benign. The diagnostic accuracy of DM alone was 81.1%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 87.8%, 60%, 81.3% and 61.1%, respectively. With DM + DBT the diagnostic accuracy was 84.8%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 92%, 56.5%, 89% and 65%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DM + DBT + US was found to be 85.1% and Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 96.3%, 50.7%, 85.7% and 82%, respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of DBT to DM led to higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and PPV. The addition of US to DM and DBT further increased the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy and significantly increased the NPV even in diagnostic mammograms and should be introduced in routine practice for characterizing breast neoplasms.

Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women

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.

A Novel Task-Based reconstruction approach for digital breast tomosynthesis

The reconstruction of a volumetric image from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) measurements is an ill-posed inverse problem, for which existing iterative regularized approaches can provide a good solution. However, the clinical task is somehow omitted in the derivation of those techniques, although it plays a primary role in the radiologist diagnosis. In this work, we address this issue by introducing a novel variational formulation for DBT reconstruction, tailored for a specific clinical task, namely the detection of microcalcifications. Our method aims at simultaneously enhancing the detectability performance and enabling a high-quality restoration of the background breast tissues. Our contribution is threefold. First, we introduce an original task-based reconstruction framework through the proposition of a detectability function inspired from mathematical model observers. Second, we propose a novel total-variation regularizer where the gradient field accounts for the different morphological contents of the imaged breast. Third, we integrate the two developed measures into a cost function, minimized thanks to a new form of the Majorize Minimize Memory Gradient (3MG) algorithm. We conduct a numerical comparison of the convergence speed of the proposed method with those of standard convex optimization algorithms. Experimental results show the interest of our DBT reconstruction approach, qualitatively and quantitatively.

Three-dimensional tomosynthesis versus two-dimensional mammography in detection and characterization of different breast lesions

Background

Breast cancer is considered the most serious lesion among different breast lesions. Mammography is the corner stone for screening for detection of breast cancer. It has been modified to digital mammography (DM) and then to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Tomosynthesis is an emerging technique for diagnosis and screening of breast lesions.

The aim of this study is to interrogate whether the addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions.

Methods

This is a prospective study carried on 38 female patients according to our inclusion criteria. All patients were evaluated by using DM alone and thereafter with the addition of DBT to DM. Recall rate was calculated, and the imaging findings of each case were correlated with the final diagnosis and follow-up.

Results

DM identified 32 lesions while DBT with DM identified 37 lesions. On DM alone, 17 lesions were characterized as masses, 5 as focal asymmetry, 2 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. With the addition of DBT, 27 lesions were characterized as masses, 1 as focal asymmetry, 1 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. So, there were better detection and characterization of lesions with the addition of DBT than DM alone. The sensitivity, specificity, AUC, positive and negative predictive values were significantly higher with the addition of DBT to DM (100%, 90.5%, 0.952, 90% and 100%, respectively) than with DM (77.8%, 80.9%, 0.794, 77.8% and 80.9%, respectively) for all breast lesions.

Conclusions

The addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions. This leads to early detection of breast cancer, improvement of the performance of radiologists and saving time by reduction of recall rate.

SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY: DIAGNOSTIC EFFICACY-ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 2020S

Diagnostic efficacy in medical imaging is ultimately a reflection of radiologist performance. This can be influenced by numerous factors, some of which are patient related, such as the physical size and density of the breast, and machine related, where some lesions are difficult to visualise on traditional imaging techniques. Other factors are human reader errors that occur during the diagnostic process, which relate to reader experience and their perceptual and cognitive oversights. Given the large-scale nature of breast cancer screening, even small increases in diagnostic performance equate to large numbers of women saved. It is important to identify the causes of diagnostic errors and how detection efficacy can be improved. This narrative review will therefore explore the various factors that influence mammographic performance and the potential solutions used in an attempt to ameliorate the errors made.

Benefit of digital breast tomosynthesis in symptomatic young women (≤30 years) diagnosed with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 on ultrasound

AIM

To evaluate the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the diagnosis of breast lesions in symptomatic young Chinese women (≤30 years) diagnosed with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 or 5 on ultrasound, and demonstrate the potential use of combining DBT with ultrasound.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 5 years of digital mammography (DM) and DBT data (January 2015 to July 2020). In total, 768 DBT and DM examinations were performed in 713 young women. The results were determined by pathological assessment. Diagnostic performance was measured based on the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Compared with DM alone, DBT + DM increased the sensitivity from 82.5% to 93.2%, specificity from 70.8% to 84%, accuracy from 74% to 86.5%, NPV from 93.6% to 97.4% (all p<0.01). The AUC of DBT + DM (0.946, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.927-0.960) was greater than that of DM (0.884, 95% CI: 0.859-0.905; p<0.001). The differences in the BI-RADS category distributions of malignant and benign lesions were both statistically significant (p<0.001). DM alone led to 36 false-negative diagnoses, whereas the inclusion of DBT identified breast cancer in 22 of those cases. There were 4.9% (10/206) false-negative diagnoses in ultrasound. After adding DBT, four breast cancers were detected. An additional six breast cancers were diagnosed by biopsy based on an assessment of BI-RADS 4A by DBT/DM.

CONCLUSION

DBT + DM significantly improves the diagnostic performance in this young population, especially in young people with higher breast density. Moreover, DBT is an effective supplementary examination to ultrasound.

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.

Clinical and X-ray characteristics for expressions of different receptors in patients with breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Clarifying the expression of breast cancer receptor is the key to clinical treatment for breast cancer. This study aims to explore the correlation between X-ray and clinical characteristics of 4 molecular subtypes and their receptor types of breast cancer.

METHODS

A total of 439 breast cancer patients who confirmed by pathology and performed X-ray examination were enrolled. The X-ray and clinical characteristics of 4 molecular subtypes and the expression of their receptors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Luminal A type showed the highest proportion of spiculate masses, and the lowest calcification score, showing significant difference with other 3 subtypes (all P<0.001). The age in the human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) overexpression type group was older, the proportions of menopause, the calcification score, and the calcification score with 9-12 were higher, the sizes of the tumor were greater in the HER2 overexpression type group than those in the other 3 molecular subtype groups (age P<0.05, the rest P<0.01). The proportions of regular shape, edge indistinct, and high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma in the triple-negative type group were higher than those in the other 3 molecular subtype groups (all P<0.001). The proportions of non-menopausal patients and spiculate tumors in the estrogen receptor (ER) positive and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive groups were higher than those in both ER and PR negative group (P<0.001 and P=0.001, respectively). The proportions of calcification fraction and high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma were higher, tumor sizes were greater in the HER2 positive group, Ki-67≥20% group than those in the HER2 negative group, Ki-67<20% group, respectively (P<0.001 or P<0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Four molecular subtypes of breast cancer and their receptor expressions are correlated with X-ray and clinical characteristics, which can provide a basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Breast cancer, screening and diagnostic tools: All you need to know

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies among women worldwide. Methods for screening and diagnosis allow health care professionals to provide personalized treatments that improve the outcome and survival. Scientists and physicians are working side-by-side to develop evidence-based guidelines and equipment to detect cancer earlier. However, the lack of comprehensive interdisciplinary information and understanding between biomedical, medical, and technology professionals makes innovation of new screening and diagnosis tools difficult. This critical review gathers, for the first time, information concerning normal breast and cancer biology, established and emerging methods for screening and diagnosis, staging and grading, molecular and genetic biomarkers. Our purpose is to address key interdisciplinary information about these methods for physicians and scientists. Only the multidisciplinary interaction and communication between scientists, health care professionals, technical experts and patients will lead to the development of better detection tools and methods for an improved screening and early diagnosis.

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis

Aim

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), with or without Digital Mammography (DM) or Synthetic Mammography (SM), has been introduced or is under consideration for its introduction in breast cancer screening in several countries, as it has been shown that it has advantages over DM. Despite this there is no agreement on how to implement DBT in screening, and in many cases there is a lack of official guidance on the optimum usage of each commercially available system. The aim of this review is to carry out a manufacturer-specific summary of studies on the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening.

Methods

An exhaustive literature review was undertaken to identify clinical observer studies that evaluated at least one of five common metrics: sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, recall rate and cancer detection rate. Four common DBT implementation methods were discussed in this review: (1) DBT, (2) DM with DBT, (3) 1-view DBT with or without 1-view DM or 2-view DM and (4) DBT with SM.

Results

A summary of 89 studies, selected from a database of 677 studies, on the assessment of the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening is presented in tables and discussed in a manufacturer- and metric-specific approach. Much more studies were carried out using some DBT systems than others. For one implementation method of DBT by one manufacturer there is a shortage of studies, for another implementation there are conflicting results. In some cases, there is a strong agreement between studies, making the advantages and disadvantages of each system clear.

Conclusion

The optimum implementation method of DBT in breast screening, in terms of diagnostic benefit and patient radiation dose, for one manufacturer does not necessarily apply to other manufacturers.