Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings

The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition

This article provides updates to readers based on the newly published Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2022 Edition. These guidelines incorporate the latest evaluation of evidence from studies of diagnostic accuracy. For each clinical question, outcomes for benefits and harms were established, and qualitative or quantitative systematic reviews were conducted. Recommendations were determined through voting by a multidisciplinary group, and guidelines were documented to facilitate shared decision-making among patients and medical professionals. The guidelines address screening, surveillance, and pre- and postoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. In an environment that demands an integrated approach, decisions are needed on how to utilize modalities, such as mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and PET/CT. Additionally, it is vital to understand the appropriate use of new technologies, such as tomosynthesis, elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and to consider how best to adapt these methods for individual patients.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses: 2022 Update

Palpable masses in women are the most common symptom associated with breast cancer. This document reviews and evaluates the current evidence for imaging recommendations of palpable masses in women less than 30 to over 40 years of age. There is also a review of several different scenarios and recommendations after initial imaging. Ultrasound is usually the appropriate initial imaging for women under 30 years of age. If ultrasound findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy (BIRADS 4 or 5), it is usually appropriate to continue with diagnostic tomosynthesis or mammography with image-guided biopsy. No further imaging is recommended if the ultrasound is benign or negative. The patient under 30 years of age with a probably benign ultrasound may undergo further imaging; however, the clinical scenario plays a role in the decision to biopsy. For women between 30 to 39 years of age, ultrasound, diagnostic mammography, tomosynthesis, and ultrasound are usually appropriate. Diagnostic mammography and tomosynthesis are the appropriate initial imaging for women 40 years of age or older, as ultrasound may be appropriate if the patient had a negative mammogram within 6 months of presentation or immediately after mammography findings are suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy. If the diagnostic mammogram, tomosynthesis, and ultrasound findings are probably benign, no further imaging is necessary unless the clinical scenario indicates a biopsy. The American College of Radiology 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 where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Management of Intraductal Papilloma of the Breast Diagnosed on Core Needle Biopsy: Latest Controversies

Intraductal papillomas (IDPs), including central papilloma and peripheral papilloma, are common in the female population. Due to the lack of specific clinical manifestations of IDPs, it is easy to misdiagnose or miss diagnose. The difficulty of differential diagnosis using imaging techniques also contributes to these conditions. Histopathology is the gold standard for the diagnosis of IDPs while the possibility of under sample exists in the percutaneous biopsy. There have been some debates about how to treat asymptomatic IDPs without atypia diagnosed on core needle biopsy (CNB), especially when the upgrade rate to carcinoma is considered. This article concludes that further surgery is recommended for IDPs without atypia diagnosed on CNB who have high-risk factors, while appropriate imaging follow-up may be suitable for those without risk factors.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Evaluation of Nipple Discharge: 2022 Update

The type of nipple discharge dictates the appropriate imaging study. Physiologic nipple discharge is common and does not require diagnostic imaging. Pathologic nipple discharge in women, men, and transgender patients necessitates breast imaging. Evidence-based guidelines were used to evaluate breast imaging modalities for appropriateness based on patient age and gender. For an adult female or male 40 years of age or greater, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is performed initially. Breast ultrasound is usually performed at the same time with rare exception. For males or females 30 to 39 years of age, mammography/DBT or breast ultrasound is performed based on institutional preference and individual patient considerations. For young women less than 30 years of age, ultrasound is performed first with mammography/DBT added if there are suspicious findings or if the patient is at elevated lifetime risk for developing breast cancer. There is a high incidence of breast cancer in males with pathologic discharge. Men 25 years and older should be evaluated using mammography/DBT and ultrasound added when indicted. In transfeminine (male-to-female) patients, mammography/DBT and ultrasound are useful due to the increased incidence of breast cancer. 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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

No consensus exists on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) utilization for breast cancer detection. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DBT, combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and DM alone for breast cancer detection in average-risk women.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and/or DM for breast cancer detection were included. Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Accuracy metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of multiple covariates was assessed using meta-regression.

PROSPERO ID

CRD 42018111287.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 488,099 patients (13,923 with breast cancer) were included. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and DM alone demonstrated sensitivities of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-92), 88% (CI 83-92), and 79% (CI 75-82), as well as specificities of 84% (CI 76-89), 81% (CI 73-88), and 79% (CI 71-85), respectively. The greater sensitivities of DBT alone and combined DBT and DM compared to DM alone were preserved in the combined meta-regression models accounting for other covariates (p = 0.003-0.006). No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between DBT alone and combined DBT and DM was identified (p = 0.175-0.581).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT is more sensitive than DM, while the addition of DM to DBT provides no additional diagnostic benefit. Consideration of these findings in breast cancer imaging guidelines is recommended.

KEY POINTS

• Digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is more sensitive in detecting breast cancer than digital mammography alone in women at average risk for breast cancer. • The addition of digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis provides no additional diagnostic benefit in detecting breast cancer compared to digital breast tomosynthesis alone. • The specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is no different than digital mammography alone in the detection of breast cancer.

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.

Evaluation of Palpable Breast Abnormalities

A palpable breast abnormality is one of the most common presenting clinical breast complaints. Although the majority of palpable abnormalities are benign, they are among the most common presenting symptoms of breast cancer, and those breast cancers detected symptomatically tend to have poorer prognosis than their screen-detected counterparts. Clinical breast examination is a vital part of the workup of palpable abnormalities. However, as physical exam features of most masses are not reliable for categorization of malignancy, imaging evaluation is necessary. Choice of imaging modality, which includes diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound, is dependent upon patient age. Ultrasound is the primary imaging modality for evaluation of palpable masses in women younger than 30 years of age because of its high negative predictive value and sensitivity and lack of ionizing radiation. For women aged 30-39 years, ultrasound or mammography can be performed as the initial imaging evaluation, with ultrasound maintaining a high sensitivity in women younger than 40 years old. Mammography, often followed by ultrasound, is the recommended imaging evaluation sequence for women aged 40 and older. Utilization of advanced imaging modalities for evaluation of the palpable area of concern is not supported by evidence.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Abnormalities

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in evaluating palpable abnormalities has not been evaluated and its accuracy compared to 2D mammography is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate combined 2D mammography, DBT, and ultrasound (US) at palpable sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two breast imagers reviewed blinded consecutive cases with combined 2D mammograms and DBT examinations performed for palpable complaints. By consensus, 2D and DBT findings were recorded and compared to US. Patient characteristics, demographics, subsequent workup, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 229 sites in 188 patients were included, with 50 biopsies performed identifying 18 cancers. All 18 cancers were identified on 2D and US, whereas 17 cancers were identified on DBT. Cancer detection sensitivities for 2D, DBT, and US were 100.0%, 94.4%, and 100.0%. The negative predictive value, when combined with US, was 100% for both. The sensitivity and the specificity for both benign and malignant findings with 2D and DBT were 70.5% versus 75.4% (P = 0.07) and 95.3% versus 99.1% (P = 0.125). Palpable findings not identified by 2D and DBT were smaller than those identified (11.5 ± 8.3 mm vs 23.9 ± 12.8 mm, P < 0.001). Patients with dense breasts were more likely to have mammographically occult findings than patients with nondense breasts (27.4% vs 8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT did not improve cancer detection over 2D or US. Both mammographic modalities failed to identify sonographically confirmed findings primarily in dense breasts. The diagnostic use of DBT at palpable sites provided limited benefit over combined 2D and US. When utilizing DBT, US should be performed to adequately characterize palpable sites.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa)

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review

Mammography has long been considered as the primary technique in breast cancer detection and assessment. Despite low specificity, mammography has been preferred over other contemporary techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) due to superior sensitivity and significant health economic benefits. The development of a new technique, a limited angle cone beam pseudo-three-dimensional tomosynthesis, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), has gained momentum. Several preliminary studies and ongoing trials are showing evidence of the benefits of DBT in improving lesion visibility, accuracy of cancer detection and observer performance. This raises the possibility of adoption of DBT in the breast cancer assessment clinic, wherein confirming or dismissing the presence of malignancy (at the potential site identified during screening) is of utmost importance. Identification of suspected malignancy in terms of lesion characteristics and location is also essential in assessment. In this literature review, we evaluate the role of DBT for use in breast cancer assessment and its future in biopsy.