Performance of Wide-Angle Tomosynthesis with Synthetic Mammography in Comparison to Full Field Digital Mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test for superiority of wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography (Insight 2D) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, twenty readers interpreted 350 screening and diagnostic cases of wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus Insight 2D and FFDM in two separate reading sessions separated by at least a 6-week washout period. Breast-level estimates of the area under the curve and sensitivity along with subject-level recall rate were measured and compared between wide-angle DBT plus Insight 2D and FFDM. The same measures were also assessed for dense breasts. A hierarchical analysis plan was used to control the study's type I error rate at 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean breast-level area under the curve for distinguishing breasts with cancer from non-cancer breasts was 0.893 with DBT plus Insight 2D versus 0.837 with FFDM, showing superiority of DBT plus Insight 2D (p < 0.001). Breast-level sensitivity was significantly superior for DBT plus Insight 2D in comparison to FFDM (0.852 vs. 0.805, p = 0.043). Subject-level recall rate for DBT plus Insight 2D was significantly lower in comparison to FFDM (0.344 vs. 0.473, p < 0.001). For dense breasts, the readers' accuracy with DBT plus Insight 2D was superior to their accuracy with FFDM (0.875 vs. 0.830, p = 0.026), and their recall rate was significantly lower for DBT plus Insight 2D in comparison to FFDM (0.338 vs. 0.441, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Reader performance with wide-angle DBT plus Insight 2D is superior to that with FFDM, showing significantly higher breast-level accuracy and sensitivity and significantly lower recall rates.

Breast Density Knowledge and Awareness Among Latinas in a Low-Resource Setting

PURPOSE

Latinas in low-resource settings face additional barriers to understanding mammographic breast density (MBD) implications. The authors compared MBD awareness and knowledge in Latinas from a safety-net clinic in Arizona with a national sample.

METHODS

Latinas 40 to 74 years of age were recruited within a safety-net clinic during screening mammography appointments from 2016 to 2019 (AZ cohort) and from a nationally representative online panel in 2017 (NS cohort). Surveys completed in either English or Spanish assessed awareness and knowledge of MBD. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

The NS cohort (n = 152) was older, more educated, more likely to have undergone prior mammography, and more likely to prefer English compared with the AZ cohort (n = 1,327) (P ≤ .03 for all) The NS cohort was more likely to be aware of MBD (32.6% versus 20.7%). Of those aware, the NS cohort was more likely to understand MBD's effect on masking (67.8% versus 37.0%) and breast cancer risk (72.2% versus 32.6%) compared with the AZ cohort (P ≤ .001 for all). Adjusting for age, education, screening history, and language, MBD awareness was similar between the two cohorts (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 0.95; P = .83), but knowledge of MBD as a masking factor (ORadj, 2.8; P = .03) and risk factor (ORadj, 7.2; P < .001) remained higher in the NS cohort compared with the AZ cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in MBD awareness, but not knowledge, between Latinas in a low-resource setting compared with a national sample could be explained by age, education, screening history, and language preference, underscoring the need for tailored approaches to MBD education among Latinas.

Association of Daily Alcohol Intake, Volumetric Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk

High alcohol intake and breast density increase breast cancer (BC) risk, but their interrelationship is unknown. We examined whether volumetric density modifies and/or mediates the alcohol-BC association. BC cases (n = 2233) diagnosed from 2006 to 2013 in the San Francisco Bay area had screening mammograms 6 or more months before diagnosis; controls (n = 4562) were matched on age, mammogram date, race or ethnicity, facility, and mammography machine. Logistic regression was used to estimate alcohol-BC associations adjusted for age, body mass index, and menopause; interaction terms assessed modification. Percent mediation was quantified as the ratio of log (odds ratios [ORs]) from models with and without density measures. Alcohol consumption was associated with increased BC risk (2-sided P_trend = .004), as were volumetric percent density (OR = 1.45 per SD, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 1.56) and dense volume (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.37). Breast density did not modify the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P > .10 for all). Dense volume mediated 25.0% (95% CI = 5.5% to 44.4%) of the alcohol-BC association (2-sided P = .01), suggesting alcohol may partially increase BC risk by increasing fibroglandular tissue.

Abstract PO-238: Breast density knowledge and awareness among Latinas in a low-resource setting: A comparison nationally-representative sample of Latinas

Objective: Breast density notification laws aim to increase women’s awareness and knowledge about breast density (BD). This study’s aim was to compare BD knowledge and awareness in two Hispanic populations: a safety-net clinic serving Latina population in Maricopa County, Arizona (AZ) and a national sample of Hispanic women participating in an online research panel. Materials/Methods: Women ages 40-74 were recruited at the AZ clinic from 2016-2019 at a screening mammography appointment as part of a larger clinical trial (AZ cohort). Surveys were completed in person (English or Spanish) at enrollment to assess awareness of BD, understanding of BD risk, and mammography history. The same questions were asked in a nationally representative online panel survey conducted in 2017. All data from the national survey were weighted to adjust for probability of selection into the panel and post-stratified to match known U.S. Hispanic population distributions (NS cohort). Univariate comparisons between the clinic and the national panel were performed using Rao-Scott chi-square tests. Associations with awareness and correct knowledge were examined with multivariable logistic regression. All summaries and analyses are weighted, and were performed with SAS version 9.4 SURVEY procedures (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Results: The analysis included 1332 Hispanic women from the AZ clinic and 152 Hispanic women who completed the national survey. The AZ cohort was younger (mean age: 48.5 vs 52.8), had less education (less than high school: 68.7% vs 34.8% less than high school), more likely to prefer Spanish (92.3% vs 53.1%) and less likely to have had a prior mammogram as compared NS cohort (82.8% vs 90.4%) (all p≤ 0.03). NS cohort was more likely to have awareness of BD (32.6% vs 20.7%); correct understanding of the masking effect of BD, (67.8% vs 37.0%,) and breast cancer risk (72.2% vs 32.6%,), compared to the AZ cohort (all p &lt; 0.004). When adjusted for differences in education, age, language, and screening mammography history, BD awareness was similar between the two cohorts (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 0.95, p=0.83). Awareness was positively associated with more education, previous mammogram history, and English language. However, differences in BD knowledge remained (ORadj=2.8 [p=0.03] and 7.2 [P&lt;0.001] for knowledge of masking and risk, respectively). Conclusions: There were significant differences in BD awareness and knowledge between a nationally-representative sample of Latinas and Latinas in a low-resource setting. The differences in BD awareness, but not knowledge, could be explained by education, screening history and preferred language. These findings suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to raising BD awareness and knowledge will not work. To ensure equitable dissemination of health care to Latina women undergoing screening mammography, future work should be aimed at developing effective tools and resources for educating Spanish-speaking women about BD and risk-based screening.

Citation Format: Jillian Leaver, Bhavika K. Patel, Jennifer L. Ridgeway, Sarah Jenkins, Vera Suman, Deborah J. Rhodes, Aaron Norman, Karthik Ghosh, Bijan Borah, Carrie Hruska, Edna Ramos, Davinder Singh, Matt Jewett, Carmen Radecki-Breitkof, Celine Vachon. Breast density knowledge and awareness among Latinas in a low-resource setting: A comparison nationally-representative sample of Latinas [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-238.

Automated volumetric breast density measures: differential change between breasts in women with and without breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Given that breast cancer and normal dense fibroglandular tissue have similar radiographic attenuation, we examine whether automated volumetric density measures identify a differential change between breasts in women with cancer and compare to healthy controls.

METHODS

Eligible cases (n = 1160) had unilateral invasive breast cancer and bilateral full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) at two time points: within 2 months and 1-5 years before diagnosis. Controls (n = 2360) were matched to cases on age and date of FFDMs. Dense volume (DV) and volumetric percent density (VPD) for each breast were assessed using Volpara™. Differences in DV and VPD between mammograms (median 3 years apart) were calculated per breast separately for cases and controls and their difference evaluated by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To simulate clinical practice where cancer laterality is unknown, we examined whether the absolute difference between breasts can discriminate cases from controls using area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, and time.

RESULTS

Among cases, the VPD and DV between mammograms of the cancerous breast decreased to a lesser degree (- 0.26% and - 2.10 cm³) than the normal breast (- 0.39% and - 2.74 cm³) for a difference of 0.13% (p value < 0.001) and 0.63 cm³ (p = 0.002), respectively. Among controls, the differences between breasts were nearly identical for VPD (- 0.02 [p = 0.92]) and DV (0.05 [p = 0.77]). The AUC for discriminating cases from controls using absolute difference between breasts was 0.54 (95% CI 0.52, 0.56) for VPD and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.54, 0.58) for DV.

CONCLUSION

There is a small relative increase in volumetric density measures over time in the breast with cancer which is not found in the normal breast. However, the magnitude of this difference is small, and this measure alone does not appear to be a good discriminator between women with and without breast cancer.

Combined effect of volumetric breast density and body mass index on breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Breast density and body mass index (BMI) are used for breast cancer risk stratification. We evaluate whether the positive association between volumetric breast density and breast cancer risk is strengthened with increasing BMI.

METHODS

The San Francisco Mammography Registry and Mayo Clinic Rochester identified 781 premenopausal and 1850 postmenopausal women with breast cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2015 that had a screening digital mammogram at least 6 months prior to diagnosis. Up to three controls (N = 3535) were matched per case on age, race, date, mammography machine, and state. Volumetric percent density (VPD) and dense volume (DV) were measured with Volpara™. Breast cancer risk was assessed with logistic regression stratified by menopause status. Multiplicative interaction tests assessed whether the association of density measures was differential by BMI categories.

RESULTS

The increased risk of breast cancer associated with VPD was strengthened with higher BMI for both premenopausal (p_interaction = 0.01) and postmenopausal (p_interaction = 0.0003) women. For BMI < 25, 25-30, and ≥ 30 kg/m², ORs for breast cancer for a 1 SD increase in VPD were 1.24, 1.65, and 1.97 for premenopausal, and 1.20, 1.55, and 2.25 for postmenopausal women, respectively. ORs for breast cancer for a 1 SD increase in DV were 1.39, 1.33, and 1.51 for premenopausal (p_interaction = 0.58), and 1.31, 1.34, and 1.65 (p_interaction = 0.03) for postmenopausal women for BMI < 25, 25-30 and ≥ 30 kg/m², respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of volumetric percent density on breast cancer risk is strongest in overweight and obese women. These associations have clinical relevance for informing prevention strategies.

Abstract PD4-05: Molecular breast imaging and tomosynthesis to eliminate the reservoir of undetected cancer in dense breasts: The Density MATTERS trial

Background

High mammographic breast density is the primary reason for missed cancers or delayed detection on mammography, and is associated with a higher rate of advanced and interval cancers which increase breast cancer mortality. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to reduce false positive findings relative to 2D mammography but does not eliminate the potential for tumor masking in dense breasts due to the similar x-ray attenuation characteristics of tumors and normal fibroglandular tissue. Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI) performed with a dedicated gamma camera to detect functional uptake of a radiotracer, Tc-99m sestamibi, has been shown to reveal breast cancers obscured by density on mammography. In single-institution studies, adding MBI to 2D mammography in women with dense breasts detected an additional 5 to10 invasive cancers per 1000 screened, with modest increases in recall rate (6 to 8%) at a lower cost-per-cancer detected than mammography alone. Despite this promising evidence, the lack of multicenter trial data has limited wider acceptance. Also, MBI has yet to be compared to DBT, which in some centers has replaced 2D mammography screening. We present interim results from a multicenter trial comparing cancer detection rate of DBT and MBI in screening of women with mammographically dense breasts.

Methods

In this ongoing, prospective, multicenter clinical trial, asymptomatic women aged 40-75 years with dense breasts on prior mammogram and no prior history of supplemental screening are invited to undergo two annual rounds of concurrent DBT and MBI. MBI is performed with injection of 300 MBq Tc-99m sestamibi with a dual-head semiconductor-based gamma camera. Screening tests are interpreted independently. Here, preliminary cancer detection rates (cancers per 1000 women screened), recall rates, and biopsy rates of DBT and MBI for initial screening are reported.

Results

In 537 women out of a planned 3000 who have completed the first round of screening, 7 cancers were detected: one by DBT only and 6 by MBI only, giving cancer detection rates of 1.9 for DBT vs. 11.2 for MBI and incremental cancer detection rate of 9.3 for MBI. The one DBT-only cancer was a node-negative 0.8 cm invasive lobular carcinoma. All 6 cancers detected by MBI were invasive; 5 of 6 were node negative (median size 1.0 cm; range 0.6 to 2.6 cm). Recall rate was 11% (60/537) for DBT alone; 16% (84/537) for MBI alone, and 21% (115/537) for the combination. Biopsy was prompted by DBT in 13 patients (PPV 8% [1/13]); by MBI in 23 patients (PPV 26% [6/23]); and by the combination of modalities in 33 (PPV 21% [7/33]).

Conclusion

These preliminary results demonstrate that MBI detects invasive breast cancers occult on DBT in dense breasts. Data from a second screening round will allow calculation of sensitivity and specificity, and determination of the impact of screening MBI in reducing advanced (&gt; 2 cm) and interval cancers. Additional planned analyses will evaluate a denoising algorithm for further reduction in MBI radiation dose to match that of DBT.

Citation Format: Rhodes D, Hunt K, Conners A, Zingula S, Whaley D, Ellis R, Gasal Spilde J, Mehta R, Polley M-Y, O'Connor M, Hruska C. Molecular breast imaging and tomosynthesis to eliminate the reservoir of undetected cancer in dense breasts: The Density MATTERS trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD4-05.

Abstract 3226: Overweight and obese women with high volumetric breast density at high breast cancer risk

Purpose: Volumetric breast density and body mass index (BMI) are increasingly used for breast cancer risk stratification. We examine if the effect of volumetric breast density on breast cancer risk increases with increasing BMI.

Methods: Participants were from two case-control studies within mammography practices, the San Francisco Mammography Registry and the Mayo Clinic Rochester, Breast Screening Practice. Breast cancers were included if diagnosed between January 2007 and 2015 and with a screening full-field digital mammogram at least 6 months prior to diagnosis; the earliest mammogram within 5 years of diagnosis was selected. Up to three controls were matched to each case on age, race, date, mammography machine, and state of residence. Volumetric percent density (VPD), dense volume (DV) and non-dense volume (NDV) were measured using VolparaTM software. Breast cancer risk was assessed using logistic regression stratified by menopause status and adjusted for matching factors, family history of breast cancer, parity/age at first birth, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. Models for DV were additionally adjusted for NDV, and NDV models for DV. Multiplicative interactions were fit between BMI categories [&lt;25 (underweight), 25-30 (normal weight) and &gt;30 (overweight/obese) kg/m2] and VPD, DV, and NDV, and trend tests assessed for increasing odds ratios (OR) with increasing BMI.

Results: A total of 781 premenopausal and 1850 postmenopausal breast cancers and 3535 controls were included in the analysis. Median age of premenopausal women was 45 years (IQR: 6.1) and 63.3 years (IQR: 14) for postmenopausal women. Cases vs. controls had greater VPD and DV for both premenopausal (VPD: 14.9% vs. 12.0%, DV: 74.1 cm3 vs. 64.4 cm3) and postmenopausal women (VPD: 6.8% vs. 6.1%, DV: 53.4 cm3 vs. 48.0 cm3)(all p's&lt;0.001). Trends between increasing BMI and VPD were evident for both pre (ptrend=0.0007) and postmenopausal (ptrend=0.0005) women. Among premenopausal women, the odds ratio (OR) for breast cancer associated with a 10% increase in VPD was of 1.39, 2.19 and 2.88 for BMI &lt;25, 25-30 and &gt;30 kg/m2 (p-trend=0.0007), respectively. For DV, OR's were 1.39, 1.33 and 1.51 for a 1 SD increase in DV, respectively, though the interaction with DV was not significant (ptrend=0.68). Among postmenopausal women, a 10% increase in VPD was associated with OR's of 1.35, 2.03, 3.6 for BMI &lt;25, 25-29, &gt;30-kg/m2 (ptrend =0.0001), respectively, and 1.31, 1.34 and 1.65 for a 1 SD increase in DV (ptrend =0.01), respectively. Associations between NDV and breast cancer risk did not differ by BMI category for premenopausal (ptrend =0.52) or postmenopausal (ptrend =0.07) women.

Conclusions: The effect of VPD on breast cancer risk is strongest in overweight/obese women. As volumetric breast density and BMI are commonly used in clinical risk stratification, these differences in risk have high clinical relevance for informing prevention decisions.

Citation Format: Natalie J. Engmann, Christopher G. Scott, Matthew R. Jensen, Stacey J. Winham, Lin Ma, Kathleen R. Brandt, Amir Mahmoudzadeh, Serghei Malkov, Dana Whaley, Carrie Hruska, Fang Fang Wu, Diana L. Miglioretti, Aaron D. Norman, John Heine, John Shepherd, Vernon S. Pankratz, Celine M. Vachon, Karla Kerlikowske. Overweight and obese women with high volumetric breast density at high breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3226.

Molecular breast imaging

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a new nuclear medicine technique that utilizes small semiconductor-based gamma-cameras in a mammographic configuration to provide high-resolution functional images of the breast. Current studies with MBI have used Tc-99m sestamibi, which is an approved agent for breast imaging. The procedure is relatively simple to perform. Imaging can be performed within 5 min postinjection, with the breast lightly compressed between the two detectors. Images of each breast are acquired in the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections facilitating comparison with mammography. Key studies have confirmed that MBI has a high sensitivity for the detection of small breast lesions. In patients with suspected breast cancer, MBI has an overall sensitivity of 90%, with a sensitivity of 82% for lesions less than 10 mm in size. Sensitivity was lowest for tumors less than 5 mm in size. Tumor detection does not appear to be dependent on tumor type, but rather on tumor size. Studies using MBI and breast-specific gamma-imaging have shown that these methods have comparable sensitivity to breast MRI. A large clinical trial compared MBI with screening mammography in over 1000 women with mammographically dense breast tissue and increased risk of breast cancer and showed that MBI detected two-to three-times more cancers than mammography. In addition, MBI appears to have slightly better specificity than mammography in this trial. MBI provides high-resolution functional images of the breast and its potential applications range from evaluation of the extent of disease to a role as an adjunct screening technique in certain high-risk populations. MBI is highly complementary to existing anatomical techniques, such as mammography, tomosynthesis and ultrasound.