Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center. ISRN Radiol. 2014;2014:658929. [PMID: 24967297 PMCID: PMC4045465 DOI: 10.1155/2014/658929]

Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging

PURPOSE

Limited work has been performed for the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer surveillance imaging. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between two different DBT implementations in breast cancer surveillance imaging, for patients with a personal history of breast cancer.

METHOD

The DBT implementations investigated were: (1) 2-view 2D digital mammography and 2-view DBT (2vDM&2vDBT) (2) 1-view (cranial-caudal) DM and 1-view (mediolateral-oblique) DBT (1vDM&1vDBT). Clinical performance of these two implementations was assessed retrospectively using observer studies with 118 sets of real patient images, from a single imaging centre, and six observers. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) using the Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) analysis were evaluated.

RESULTS

Results suggest that the two DBT implementations are not significantly different in terms of sensitivity, specificity and AUC. When looking at the two main different lesion types, non-calcifications and calcifications, and two different density levels, no difference in the performance of the two DBT implementations was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1vDM&1vDBT exposes the patient to half the dose of 2vDM&2vDBT, it might be worth considering 1vDM&1vDBT in breast cancer surveillance imaging. However, larger studies are required to conclude on this matter.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

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.

Imaging of the treated breast post breast conservation surgery/oncoplasty: Pictorial review

Mammographic appearance of the normal breast is altered in the post-operative setting. It is essential to be aware of the normal findings as well as to identify features of recurrent disease with particular emphasis on radiological-pathological concordance. Digital breast tomosynthesis and volumetric breast density add incremental value in this clinical setting. We present a pictorial review of various cases to illustrate normal post-operative findings as well as mammographic features suspicious for recurrent disease.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval: A Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale).

RESULTS

There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score ≥ 4/5).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.

Impact of the Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Standard 2D Digital Screening Mammography on the Rates of Patient Recall, Cancer Detection, and Recommendations for Short-term Follow-up

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital screening mammography (DM) has been shown to decrease recall rates and improve cancer detection rates, but there is a lack of data regarding the impact of DBT on rates of short-term follow-up. We assessed possible changes in performance measures with the introduction of DBT at our facility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our observational study, databases were used to compare rates of recall, short-term follow-up, biopsy, and cancer detection between women undergoing DM without (n = 10,477) and women undergoing DM with (n = 2304) the addition of DBT. Regression analysis was performed to determine associations with patient age, breast density, and availability of comparison examinations.

RESULTS

The addition of DBT resulted in significantly lower recall rates (16%-14%, P = .017), higher rates of biopsy (12.7%-19.1%, P < .01), and increased detection of ductal carcinoma in situ, with a difference of 2.3 cases per 1000 screens (P = .044). A 33% increase in cancer detection rates was observed with DBT, which did not reach statistical significance. Short-term follow-up of probably benign findings was 80% higher in the DBT group (odds ratio = 1.80, 95% confidence interval = 1.38-2.36, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, we are the first to study the impact of DBT on rates of short-term follow-up, and observed an 80% increase over the DM group. Further research is needed to determine the malignancy rate of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions detected with DBT, and establish appropriate follow-up to maximize cancer detection while minimizing expense and patient anxiety.

Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) represents a valuable addition to breast cancer screening by decreasing recall rates while increasing cancer detection rates. The increased accuracy achieved with DBT is due to the quasi-three-dimensional format of the reconstructed images and the ability to "scroll through" breast tissue in the reconstructed images, thereby reducing the effect of tissue superimposition found with conventional planar digital mammography. The margins of both benign and malignant lesions are more conspicuous at DBT, which allows improved lesion characterization, increased reader confidence, and improved screening outcomes. However, even with the improvements in accuracy achieved with DBT, there remain differences in breast cancer conspicuity by mammographic view. Early data suggest that breast cancers may be more conspicuous on craniocaudal (CC) views than on mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. While some very laterally located breast cancers may be visualized on only the MLO view, the increased conspicuity of cancers on the CC view compared with the MLO view suggests that DBT screening should be performed with two-view imaging. Even with the improved conspicuity of lesions at DBT, there may still be false-negative studies. Subtle lesions seen on only one view may be discounted, and dense and/or complex tissue patterns may make some cancers occult or extremely difficult to detect. Therefore, radiologists should be cognizant of both perceptual and cognitive errors to avoid potential pitfalls in lesion detection and characterization. ^©RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Characterization of lesions in dense breasts: Does tomosynthesis help?

Context:

Mammography in dense breasts is challenging due to lesion obscuration by tissue overlap. Does tomosynthesis offers a solution?

Aims:

To study the impact of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in characterizing lesions in breasts of different mammographic densities.

Settings and Design:

Prospective blinded study comparing mammography in two views with Mammography + Tomosynthesis.

Methods and Material:

Tomosynthesis was performed in 199 patients who were assigned Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS) categories 0, 3, 4, or 5 on two-dimensional (2D) mammogram. Mammograms were first categorized into one of 4 mammographic breast densities in accordance with the American College of Radiology (ACR). Three radiologists independently analyzed these images and assigned a BIRADS category first based on 2D mammogram alone, and then assigned a fresh BIRADS category after taking mammography and tomosynthesis into consideration. A composite gold-standard was used in the study (histopathology, ultrasound, follow-up mammogram, magnetic resonance imaging). Each lesion was categorized into 3 groups—superior categorization with DBT, no change in BIRADS, or inferior BIRADS category based on comparison with the gold-standard. The percentage of lesions in each group was calculated for different breast densities.

Results:

There were 260 lesions (ages 28–85). Overall, superior categorization was seen in 21.2% of our readings on addition of DBT to mammography. DBT was most useful in ACR Densities 3 and 4 breasts where it led to more appropriate categorization in 27 and 42% of lesions, respectively. DBT also increased diagnostic confidence in 54.5 and 63.6% of lesions in ACR Densities 3 and 4, respectively.

Conclusions:

In a diagnostic setting, the utility of tomosynthesis increases with increasing breast density. This helps in identifying the sub category of patients where DBT can actually change management.

Advancements in Imaging Technology for Detection and Diagnosis of Palpable Breast Masses

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in women. The most common presentation of breast cancer is the presence of a palpable mass, whether noted by the patient during breast self-examination or noted during clinical breast examination. There are a variety of imaging modalities now available for the evaluation of a palpable abnormality. A thorough understanding of the indications, risks, and benefits can help the clinician guide the patient through an appropriate, comprehensive imaging work up.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Characterize MRI-Detected Additional Lesions Unidentified at Targeted Ultrasound in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance (MR) often generates additional suspicious findings needing further investigations. Targeted breast ultrasound (US) is the standard tool to characterize MR additional lesions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to characterize MR detected additional findings, unidentified at targeted breast US.

METHODS

This prospective study included women who a) had biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed breast cancers detected at conventional 2D mammography and/or US, referred to breast MR for tumour staging; and b) had DBT if additional MR findings were not detected at targeted ('second look') US.

RESULTS

In 520 patients, MR identified 164 (in 114 women, 22%) additional enhancing lesions. Targeted US identified 114/164 (69.5%) of these, whereas 50/164 (30.5%) remained unidentified. DBT identified 32/50 of these cases, increasing the overall characterization of MR detected additional findings to 89.0% (146/164). Using DBT the identified lesions were significantly more likely to be malignant than benign MR-detected additional lesions (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT improves the characterization of additional MR findings not identified at targeted breast US in preoperative breast cancer staging.

KEY POINTS

• Targeted US identified 114 of 164 (69.5%) additional enhancing lesions at preoperative breast MRI. • DBT identified a further 32 of the 50 lesions unidentified on targeted US. • DBT improved the characterization of additional MR findings for breast cancer staging.