Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

MR-contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for follow-up of breast cancer patients: a "pros and cons" debate

Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at an increased risk of either a local recurrence or a new primary breast cancer. Thus, surveillance is essential for the detection of recurrent disease at the earliest possible stage, allowing for prompt treatment, and potentially improving overall survival. Nowadays, mammography follow-up is the only surveillance imaging technique recommended by international guidelines. Nevertheless, sensitivity of mammography is lower after breast cancer treatment, particularly during the first 5 years, due to increased density or post-treatment changes. Contrast-enhanced breast imaging techniques, such as MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), are very sensitive to detect malignant enhancement, especially in dense breasts. This Special Report will provide arguments in favor of and against breast cancer follow-up with MRI or CEM, in a debate style between experts in Breast Imaging. Finally, the scientific points of pros and cons arguments will be summarized to help objectively decide the best follow-up strategy for women with a personal history of breast cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A personalized approach to follow-up imaging after conservative breast cancer treatment could optimize patient outcomes, using mammography as a baseline for most patients, and MRI or CEM selectively in patients with higher risks for a recurrence. KEY POINTS: • Women with a personal history of breast cancer are at an increased risk of either a local recurrence or a new primary breast cancer. • Breast cancer survivors may benefit from additional imaging with MRI/CEM, in case of increased risk of a second breast cancer, with dense breasts or a cancer diagnosis before age 50 years. • As survival after local recurrence seems to depend on the initial stage at diagnosis, imaging should be more focused on detecting tumors in the earliest stages.

Hereditary Breast Cancer: BRCA Mutations and Beyond

Hereditary breast cancers are manifested by pathogenic and likely pathogenic genetic mutations. Penetrance expresses the breast cancer risk associated with these genetic mutations. Although BRCA1/2 are the most widely known genetic mutations associated with breast cancer, numerous additional genes demonstrate high and moderate penetrance for breast cancer. This review describes current genetic testing, details the specific high and moderate penetrance genes for breast cancer and reviews the current approach to screening for breast cancer in patients with these genetic mutations.

Mammographic surveillance after breast cancer

Early detection of local recurrence has been shown to improve survival. What is unclear is how frequently mammography should be performed, how long surveillance should continue and how the answers to these questions vary with tumour pathology, patients age, and surgery type. Many of these questions are not directly answerable from the current literature. While some of these questions will be answered by the Mammo-50 study, evidence from local recurrence rates, tumour biology, and the lead time of mammography can be used to guide policy. Young age is the strongest predictor of local recurrence and given the short lead time of screening in women under 50, these women require annual mammography. Women over 50 with HER-2 positive and triple negative breast cancer have higher rates of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery than women with luminal cancers. Women with HER-2 positive and triple negative breast cancer also have a higher rate of recurrence in years 1-3 post surgery. Annual mammography in year 1-4 would appear justified. Women over 50 with luminal cancers have low rates of local recurrence and no early peak. Recurrence growth will be low due to tumour biology and hormone therapy. Biennial mammography after year 2 would seem appropriate. Women over 50 following mastectomy have no early peak in contralateral cancers so the frequency should be determined by the lead time of screening. This would suggest 2 yearly mammography for women aged 50-60 while 3 yearly mammography may suffice for women over 60.

Performance Metrics of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Based on Years Since a Prior Breast Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND. Mammography surveillance protocols after breast cancer treatment vary widely. Some practices recommend performing diagnostic mammography for a certain number of years or indefinitely, whereas others recommend returning immediately to screening. OBJECTIVE. This study's objective was to determine performance metrics of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients who resume screening mammography immediately after breast cancer treatment, based on the number of years since the breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS. This retrospective study included screening DBT examinations performed from January 2013 to June 2019 in patients who resumed screening mammography immediately after a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between screening performance metrics and years since the prior breast cancer diagnosis, controlling for age, race and ethnicity, breast density, presence of a prior screening mammogram, and interpreting radiologist. RESULTS. The study included 8090 patients (mean age, 65 ± 11 [SD] years) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis who underwent 30,812 screening DBT examinations during the study period. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 8.6 per 1000 examinations (265/30,812), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 5.7% (1750/30,812), PPV1 was 15.1% (265/1750), sensitivity was 80.3% (265/330), specificity was 95.1% (28,997/30,482), and false-negative rate was 2.1 per 1000 examinations (65/30,812). CDR showed a significant independent positive association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p < .001), being lowest more than 2 to up to 3 years after diagnosis (4.9 per 1000 examinations) and highest more than 8 to up to 9 years after diagnosis (11.2 per 1000 examinations). AIR showed a significant independent negative association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; p = .01), being highest 1 year or less after diagnosis (7.5%) and lowest more than 5 to up to 6 years after diagnosis (5.0%). CONCLUSION. Among 8090 patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis, even though the AIR was higher during the year after diagnosis compared with subsequent years, the AIR remained acceptably low (< 10%) in all years. CLINICAL IMPACT. These results support the study institution's mammographic surveillance protocol for patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis of returning immediately to DBT screening.

Comparing the performance of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with a history of breast cancer: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of 2D (FFDM) against 3D (FFDM plus DBT) examinations in the post-treatment surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

A list of women with a history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography (2D or 3D) from 5/2017 to 5/2020 was retrieved. A total of 20,210 examinations were identified and performance metrics were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) (p = 0.38), recall rate (RR) (p = 0.087), or positive predictive value (PPV) (p = 0.74) between 2D vs. 3D examinations. Stratification by breast tissue identified no statistically significant difference in CDR (p = 0.581 and p = 0.428), RR (p = 0.230 and p = 0.205), or PPV (p = 0.908 and p = 0.721) between fatty/scattered and heterogeneous/extremely dense breast tissue when comparing 2D vs 3D examinations. Stratification by age did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 2D vs. 3D examinations in the 60-69 years group (p = 0.021). Stratification by race did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 3D vs. 2D examinations in white women (p = 0.036). Stratification by laterality (bilateral vs. unilateral post mastectomy) did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased in 2D vs. 3D examinations in unilateral studies (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

For asymptomatic women with a history of breast cancer, there is no evidence that the addition of DBT to FFDM improves CDR, RR, or PPV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

More studies are needed concerning screening methodologies supplementing FFDM in the screening regimens of breast cancer survivors.

Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

BACKGROUND. Studies establishing the validity of BI-RADS category 3 excluded patients with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Use of category 3 in patients with PHBC may be impacted not only by this population's increased breast cancer risk, but also by adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) over full-field digital mammography (FFDM). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to compare the frequency, outcomes, and additional characteristics of BI-RADS category 3 assessments between FFDM and DBT in patients with PHBC. METHODS. This retrospective study included 14,845 mammograms in 10,118 patients (mean age, 63 years) with PHBC who had undergone mastectomy and/or lumpectomy. Of these, 8422 examinations were performed by FFDM from October 2014 to September 2016, and 6423 examinations by FFDM with DBT from February 2017 to December 2018, after interval conversion of the center's mammography units. Information was extracted from the EHR and radiology reports. FFDM and DBT groups were compared in the entire sample and among index category 3 lesions (i.e., earliest category 3 assessment per lesion). RESULTS. The frequency of category 3 assessment was lower for DBT than FFDM (5.6% vs 6.4%; p = .05). DBT, compared with FFDM, showed a lower malignancy rate for category 3 lesions (1.8% vs 5.0%; p = .04), higher malignancy rate for category 4 lesions (32.0% vs 23.2%; p = .03), and no difference in malignancy rate for category 5 lesions (100.0% vs 75.0%; p = .24). Analysis of index category 3 lesions included 438 and 274 lesions for FFDM and DBT, respectively. For category 3 lesions, DBT, compared with FFDM, showed lower PPV3 (13.9% vs 36.1%; p = .02) and a more frequent mammographic finding of mass (33.2% vs 23.1%; p = .003). CONCLUSION. The malignancy rate for category 3 lesions in patients with PHBC was less than the accepted limit (2%) for DBT (1.8%), but not FFDM (5.0%). A lower malignancy rate for category 3 lesions but higher malignancy rate for category 4 lesions for DBT supports more appropriate application of category 3 assessment in patients with PHBC through use of DBT. CLINICAL IMPACT. These insights may help establish whether category 3 assessments in patients with PHBC are within benchmarks for early detection of second cancers and reduction of benign biopsies.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Decade of Practice in Review

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), introduced in 2011, was thought to be a further evolution of full-field digital mammography (DM). Assessing DBT presents unique challenges. The widely variable settings in which DBT has been applied affect outcomes. In initial studies comparing DM-DBT with DM, outcomes for cancer detection rates (CDRs) and recall rates have been mixed. CDR improves most in biennial screening settings, with little or no improvement in annual screening. Recall rates improve most where rates are highest; no improvement is seen in European prospective trials. Adoption of synthesized mammography (SM), derived from the tomosynthesis acquisition and intended to avoid the DM exposure, has been slow because of inferior image quality. Despite this, SM-DBT has shown equivalent outcomes measures to DM-DBT. An important exception is the To-Be randomized controlled trial, which showed that SM-DBT was equivalent to DM in CDR, not better. To date, interval cancer rate, a surrogate for mortality reduction, has not been shown to be improved by DBT. We may have reached the limit of morphological assessment in x-ray technique. Its use may evolve with advancements in technology as use of contrast agents expands, algorithms for SM progress, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy proliferates. Our expectations of the contributions of DBT will evolve as well.

Dedicated breast computed-tomography in women with a personal history of breast cancer: A proof-of-concept study

PURPOSE

To compare the subjective image quality assessment using B-CT and digital mammography in women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC).

METHOD

In this retrospective study 32 patients with PHBC were included. Each patient had undergone a B-CT examination and a previous mammogram in a time interval of less than 18 months between the two examinations. Two radiologists evaluated the two examinations independently with regard to the presence of lesions, BI-RADS classification, level of confidence for the overall exam interpretation, scar evaluation and image quality including image degradation due to clip artifacts. Level of confidence and image quality were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. A p-value of less than 0.01 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven operated and 27 non-operated breasts were included. Confidence for the overall interpretation with B-CT was equal or superior to mammography in 63 cases (98.4 %) for reader 1 and in 58 cases (90.6 %) for reader 2 (p <.001). Confidence for scar evaluation with B-CT was equal or superior to mammography in all cases for reader 1 and in 34 cases (91.9 %) for readers 2 (p <.001). One case with local recurrence in B-CT was identified by both readers and no false positive findings were reported. A moderate to high image degradation due to beam-hardening artifacts has been reported by both readers in 29.4 % of cases due to surgical clips in the B-CT volume.

CONCLUSIONS

B-CT in patients with PHBC provides high quality images that can be evaluated with confidence equal or superior to mammography.

Yield of Surveillance Imaging After Mastectomy With or Without Reconstruction for Patients With Prior Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

A discrepancy on current guidelines and clinical practice exists regarding routine imaging surveillance after mastectomy, mainly regarding the lack of adequate evidence for imaging in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the usefulness of imaging surveillance in terms of cancer detection and interval cancer rates after mastectomy with or without reconstruction for patients with prior breast cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 3 electronic databases-PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus-without year restriction. References from relevant reviews and eligible studies were also manually searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were defined as those conducting surveillance imaging (mammography, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of patients with prior breast cancer after mastectomy with or without reconstruction that presented adequate data to calculate cancer detection rates for each surveillance method.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent data extraction by 2 investigators with consensus on discrepant results was performed. A quality assessment of studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) template. The generalized linear mixed model framework with both fixed-effects and random-effects models was used to meta-analyze the proportion of cases across studies including 3 variables: surveillance method, reconstruction after mastectomy, and surveillance measure.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Three outcome measures were calculated for each eligible study and each surveillance imaging method within studies: overall cancer detection (defined as ipsilateral cancer, both palpable and nonpalpable) rate per 1000 examinations, clinically occult (nonpalpable) cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations, and interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled overall cancer detection rates per 1000 examinations were 1.86 (95% CI, 1.05-3.30) for mammography, 2.66 (95% CI, 1.48-4.76) for ultrasonography, and 5.17 (95% CI, 1.49-17.75) for MRI. For mastectomy without reconstruction, the rate of clinically occult (nonpalpable) cancer per 1000 examinations (2.96; 95% CI, 1.38-6.32) and the interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations (3.73; 95% CI, 0.84-3.98) were lower than the overall cancer detection rate (including both palpable and nonpalpable lesions) per 1000 examinations (6.41; 95% CI, 3.09-13.25) across all imaging modalities. The interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations for mastectomy with reconstruction (3.73; 95% CI, 0.41-2.73) was comparable to the pooled cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (4.73; 95% CI, 2.32-9.63) across all imaging modalities. In all clinical scenarios and imaging modalities, lower rates of clinically occult cancer compared with cancer detection rates were observed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lower detection rates of clinically occult-compared with overall-cancer across all 3 imaging modalities challenge the use of imaging surveillance after mastectomy, with or without reconstruction. Findings suggest that imaging surveillance in this context is unnecessary in clinical practice, at least until further studies demonstrate otherwise. Future studies should consider using the clinically occult cancer detection rate as a more clinically relevant measure in this setting.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Breast Surgery

Given that 20% to 40% of women who have percutaneous breast biopsy subsequently undergo breast surgery, knowledge of imaging women with a history of benign (including high-risk) disease or breast cancer is important. For women who had surgery for nonmalignant pathology, the surveillance recommendations are determined by their overall risk. Higher-than-average risk women with a history of benign surgery may require screening mammography starting at an earlier age before 40 and may benefit from screening MRI. For women with breast cancer who have undergone initial excision and have positive margins, imaging with diagnostic mammography or MRI can sometimes guide additional surgical planning. Women who have completed breast conservation therapy for cancer should get annual mammography and may benefit from the addition of MRI or ultrasound to their surveillance regimen. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection among Women with a History of Breast Cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance of abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer as a postoperative screening tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 471 patients who completed both DBT and AB-MRI examinations were included in this study (median age, 54.5 years). The detected cancer characteristics were analyzed. The cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven malignancies were diagnosed, and most of the detected cancers were stage I (7 of 11, 63.6%). Eight were invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC), and 3 were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of the 11 recurrences, 6 malignancies were detected by DBT, and 11 were detected by AB-MRI. AB-MRI detected all 8 IDC and 3 DCIS lesions, and DBT detected 6 of 8 IDC lesions. The CDRs for DBT and AB-MRI screenings were 12.7 and 23.4 per 1,000 women, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of DBT versus AB-MRI were 54.6% versus 100%, 97.6% versus 96.5%, 35.3% versus 40.7%, 98.9% versus 100%, and 96.6% versus 96.6%, respectively. AB-MRI showed a higher AUC value (0.983) than DBT (0.761) (p = 0.0049).

CONCLUSION

AB-MRI showed an improved CDR, especially for invasive cancer. The diagnostic performance of AB-MRI was superior to that of DBT with high sensitivity and PPV without sacrificing specificity in women with a PH of breast cancer.

Mammographic Surveillance After Breast Conserving Therapy: Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Detection

Background: Postoperative mammograms present interpretive challenges due to postoperative distortion and hematomas. The application of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) after breast concerving therapy (BCT) has not been widely investigated. Objective: To assess the impact of additional DBT or AI-CAD on recall rate and diagnostic performance in women undergoing mammographic surveillance after BCT. Methods: This retrospective study included 314 women (mean age 53.2±10.6 years; 4 with bilateral breast cancer) who underwent BCT followed by DBT (mean interval from surgery to DBT of 15.2±15.4 months). Three breast radiologists independently reviewed images in three sessions: digital mammography (DM), DM with DBT (DM+DBT), and DM with AI-CAD (DM+AI-CAD). Recall rates and diagnostic performance were compared between DM, DM+DBT, and DM+AI-CAD, using readers' mean results. Results: Of the 314 women, 6 breast recurrences (3 ipsilateral, 3 contralateral) developed at the time of surveillance mammography. Ipsilateral breast recall rate was lower for DM+AI-CAD (1.9%) than for DM (11.2%) or DM+DBT (4.1%) (p<.001). Contralateral breast recall rate was lower for DM+AI-CAD (1.5%, p<.001) than for DM (6.6%) but not DM+DBT (2.7%, p=.08). In ipsilateral breast, accuracy was higher for DM+AI-CAD (97.0%) than for DM (88.5%) or DM+DBT (94.8%) (p<.05); specificity was higher for DM+AICAD (98.3%) than for DM (89.3%) or DM+DBT (96.1%) (p<.05); sensitivity was lower for DM+AI-CAD (22.2%) than for DM (66.7%, p=.03) but not DM+DBT (22.2%, p>.99). In contralateral breast, accuracy was higher for DM+AI-CAD (97.1%) than for DM (92.5%, p<.001) but not DM+DBT (96.1%, p=.25); specificity was higher for DM+AI-CAD (98.6%) than for DM (93.7%, p<.001) but not DM+DBT (97.5%) (p=.09); sensitivity was not different between DM (33.3%), DM+DBT (22.2%), and DM+AI-CAD (11.1%) (p>.05). Conclusion: After BCT, adjunct DBT or AI-CAD reduced recall rates and improved accuracy in the ipsilateral and contralateral breasts compared with DM. In the ipsilateral breast, addition of AI-CAD resulted in lower recall rate and higher accuracy than addition of DBT. Clinical Impact: AI-CAD may help address the challenges of post-BCT surveillance mammograms.

Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016

Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. Purpose To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0-III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. Results Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. Conclusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Potential Benefits in Routine Clinical Practice

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is gradually being implemented in routine clinical breast imaging practice. The technique of image acquisition reduces the confounding effect of overlapping breast tissue, which substantially affects cancer detection, abnormal recall, and interval cancer rates in a screening/ surveillance setting. In a diagnostic setting, tomosynthesis also allows for improved lesion localization and characterization over conventional imaging, which potentially improves the accuracy and improved workflow efficiency. To optimize the utility of tomosynthesis, imagers should be aware of the pertinent aspects of image acquisition as it relates to interpretation, the appearance of benign and malignant pathologies, and sources of possible misinterpretation. This article aims to provide a practical knowledge base of DBT and demonstrate its potential benefits when incorporated into routine clinical practice.

[Assessment of imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis based on systematic simulation]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the imaging performance of digital breast tomography (DBT) based on systematic simulation.

OBJECTIVE

The raw measurements of physical phantoms at a variety of radiation dose levels and clinical patients at the normal radiation dose were acquired from a clinical DBT system for low-dose simulation and reconstruction using 3 reconstruction algorithms, namely Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK), simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) and adaptive steepest-descent projection onto convex sets with total-variation constraint (ASDPOCS-TV) algorithms. The image quality was compared across different radiation dose levels and reconstruction algorithms in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), noise-power spectrum (NPS), artifact spread function (ASF) and full width at half maximum (FWHM) of ASF indexes.

OBJECTIVE

The reliability of low-dose DBT simulation strategy was verified by the experiment. Within a suitable range of dose levels, increasing the doses resulted in reduced high-frequency noise component and significantly increased SNR (P < 0.05). But when the value of exposure was below 40 mAs, the images acquired at different dose levels had similar representation. The performance of the 3 reconstruction algorithms varied for different anatomical structures, and the image quality of ASDPOCS-TV algorithm was generally superior to SART and FDK algorithms with less through-plane artifacts and noise.

OBJECTIVE

The quality of DBT images is significantly affected by both radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. A tradeoff of the parameters, the overall image quality and the clinical needs for diagnostic purposes should be considered to achieve the optimal imaging performance on a given clinical task.