Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schulz-Wendtland R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4318733 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips.
Schulz-Wendtland R R Dankerl P P Dilbat G G Bani M M Fasching P A PA Heusinger K K Lux M P MP Loehberg C R CR Jud S M SM Rauh C C Bayer C M CM Beckmann M W MW Wachter D L DL Uder M M Meier-Meitinger M M Brehm B B
Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 20150101 1
<b>Introduction:</b> This study aimed to compare the accuracy of sonography versus digital breast tomosynthesis to locate intramammary marker clips placed under ultrasound guidance. <b>Patients and Methods:</b> Fifty patients with suspicion of breast cancer (lesion diameter less than 2 cm [cT1]) had ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy with placement of a marker clip in the center of the tumor. Intramammary marker clips were subsequently located with both sonography and digital breast tomosynthe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.
| S-EPMC6493215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.
| S-EPMC7706877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the sensitivity for breast cancer (BC) and BC size estimation of preoperative contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) versus combined unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (UMRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). PATIENTS AND METHODS:We retrospectively included 56 women who underwent DBT and preoperative 1.5 T CEMRI between January 2016-February 2017. Three readers with 2-10 years of experience in CEMRI and DBT, blinded to pathology, independently reviewed CEMRI (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging, pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and a combination of UMRI (DWI and pre-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and DBT. We calculated per-lesion sensitivity of CEMRI and UMRI + DBT, and the agreement between CEMRI, UMRI and DBT versus pathology in assessing cancer size (Bland-Altman analysis). Logistic regression was performed to assess features predictive of cancer missing. RESULTS:We included 70 lesions (64% invasive BC, 36% ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive BC with in situ component). UMRI + DBT showed lower sensitivity (86-89%) than CEMRI (94-100%), with a significant difference for the most experienced reader only (p = 0.008). False-positives were fewer with UMRI + DBT (4-5) than with CEMRI (18-25), regardless of the reader (p = 0.001-0.005). For lesion size, UMRI showed closer limits of agreement with pathology than CEMRI or DBT. Cancer size ?1 cm was the only independent predictor for cancer missing for both imaging strategies (Odds ratio 8.62 for CEMRI and 19.16 for UMRI + DBT). CONCLUSIONS:UMRI + DBT showed comparable sensitivity and less false-positives than CEMRI in the preoperative assessment of BC. UMRI was the most accurate tool to assess cancer size.
| S-EPMC7375544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts.Materials and methodsA retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared.ResultsA total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40-78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8-19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726; 95% CI: 5.7-15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%-34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%-24.5%]; P < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%-28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%-18.9%; P < 0.001).ConclusionDBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.
| S-EPMC10067692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can detect more cancers than the current standard breast screening method, digital mammography (DM); however, it can substantially increase the reading workload and thus hinder implementation in screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) might be a solution. The aim of this study was to retrospectively test different ways of using AI in a screening workflow.MethodsAn AI system was used to analyse 14,772 double-read single-view DBT examinations from a screening trial with paired DM double reading. Three scenarios were studied: if AI can identify normal cases that can be excluded from human reading; if AI can replace the second reader; if AI can replace both readers. The number of detected cancers and false positives was compared with DM or DBT double reading.ResultsBy excluding normal cases and only reading 50.5% (7460/14,772) of all examinations, 95% (121/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected. Compared to DM screening, 27% (26/95) more cancers could be detected (p < 0.001) while keeping recall rates at the same level. With AI replacing the second reader, 95% (120/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected-26% (25/95) more than DM screening (p < 0.001)-while increasing recall rates by 53%. AI alone with DBT has a sensitivity similar to DM double reading (p = 0.689).ConclusionAI can open up possibilities for implementing DBT screening and detecting more cancers with the total reading workload unchanged. Considering the potential legal and psychological implications, replacing the second reader with AI would probably be most the feasible approach.Key points• Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis and artificial intelligence can detect more cancers than mammography screening without increasing screen-reading workload. • Artificial intelligence can either exclude low-risk cases from double reading or replace the second reader. • Retrospective study based on paired mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening data.
| S-EPMC10121528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening may vary per breast density subgroup. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which women, based on automatically assessed breast density subgroups, have the greatest benefit of DBT compared with DM in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.Materials and methodsThe prospective European, Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (n = 14,848, Jan. 27, 2010-Feb. 13, 2015) compared one-view DBT and two-view DM, with consensus meeting before recall. Breast density was assessed in this secondary analysis with the automatic software Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment. DBT and DM's diagnostic accuracies were compared by breast density quintiles of breast percent density (PD) and absolute dense area (DA) with confidence intervals (CI) and McNemar's test. The association between breast density and cancer detection was analyzed with logistic regression, adjusted for ages < 55 and ≥ 55 years and previous screening participation.ResultsIn total, 14,730 women (median age: 58 years; inter-quartile range = 16) were included in the analysis. Sensitivity was higher and specificity lower for DBT compared with DM for all density subgroups. The highest breast PD quintile showed the largest difference in sensitivity and specificity at 81.1% (95% CI 65.8-90.5) versus 43.2% (95% CI 28.7-59.1), p < .001 and 95.5% (95% CI 94.7-96.2) versus 97.2% (95% CI 96.6-97.8), p < 0.001, respectively. Breast PD quintile was also positively associated with cancer detected via DBT at odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.42, p = 0.001).ConclusionWomen with the highest breast density had the greatest benefit from digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography with increased sensitivity at the cost of slightly lower specificity. These results may influence digital breast tomosynthesis's use in an individualized screening program stratified by, for instance, breast density.Trial registrationTrial registration at https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov : NCT01091545, registered March 24, 2010.
| S-EPMC10548633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe examined whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) detects differentially in high- or low-density screens.MethodsWe searched six databases (2009-2020) for studies comparing DBT and digital mammography (DM), and reporting cancer detection rate (CDR) and/or recall rate by breast density. Meta-analysis was performed to pool incremental CDR and recall rate for DBT (versus DM) for high- and low-density (dichotomised based on BI-RADS) and within-study differences in incremental estimates between high- and low-density. Screening settings (European/US) were compared.ResultsPooled within-study difference in incremental CDR for high- versus low-density was 1.0/1000 screens (95% CI: 0.3, 1.6; p = 0.003). Estimates were not significantly different in US (0.6/1000; 95% CI: 0.0, 1.3; p = 0.05) and European (1.9/1000; 95% CI: 0.3, 3.5; p = 0.02) settings (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). For incremental recall rate, within-study differences between density subgroups differed by setting (p < 0.001). Pooled incremental recall was less in high- versus low-density screens (-0.9%; 95% CI: -1.4%, -0.4%; p < 0.001) in US screening, and greater (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.3%; p = 0.001) in European screening.ConclusionsDBT has differential incremental cancer detection and recall by breast density. Although incremental CDR is greater in high-density, a substantial proportion of additional cancers is likely to be detected in low-density screens. Our findings may assist screening programmes considering DBT for density-tailored screening.
| S-EPMC9276736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The diagnostic performance difference between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations is unclear. The objective of this study is to determine whether DBT exhibits the diagnostic advantage for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations compared with FFDM. Three hundred and five patients were enrolled (of which seven patients with bilateral lesions) and 312 breasts images were retrospectively analyzed by three radiologists independently. The postoperative pathology of breast calcifications was the gold standard. Breast cancer was diagnosed utilizing DBT and FFDM with sensitivities of 92.9% and 88.8%, specificities of 87.9% and 75.2%, positive predictive values of 77.8% and 62.1%, negative predictive values of 96.4% and 93.6%, respectively. DBT exhibited significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for benign calcifications compared with FFDM (87.9% vs 75.2%), and no advantage in the diagnosis of malignant calcifications. DBT diagnostic accuracy was notably higher than FFDM in premenopausal (88.4% vs 78.8%), postmenopausal (90.2% vs 77.2%), and dense breast cases (89.4% vs 81.9%). There was no significant difference in non-dense breast cases. In our study, DBT exhibited a superior advantage in dense breasts and benign calcifications cases compared to FFDM, while no advantage was observed in non-dense breasts or malignant calcifications cases. Thus, in the breast cancer screening for young women with dense breasts, DBT may be recommended for accurate diagnosis. Our findings may assist the clinicians in applying the optimal techniques for different patients and provide a theoretical basis for the update of breast cancer screening guideline.
| S-EPMC6317146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the diagnostic performance of breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental mammography views in classification of masses, distortions, and asymmetries.Eight radiologists who specialized in breast imaging retrospectively reviewed 217 consecutively accrued lesions by using protocols that were HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved in 182 patients aged 31-60 years (mean, 50 years) who underwent diagnostic mammography and tomosynthesis. The lesions in the cohort included 33% (72 of 217) cancers and 67% (145 of 217) benign lesions. Eighty-four percent (182 of 217) of the lesions were masses, 11% (25 of 217) were asymmetries, and 5% (10 of 217) were distortions that were initially detected at clinical examination in 8% (17 of 217), at mammography in 80% (173 of 217), at ultrasonography (US) in 11% (25 of 217), or at magnetic resonance imaging in 1% (2 of 217). Histopathologic examination established truth in 191 lesions, US revealed a cyst in 12 lesions, and 14 lesions had a normal follow-up. Each lesion was interpreted once with tomosynthesis and once with supplemental mammographic views; both modes included the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views in a fully crossed and balanced design by using a five-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and a probability-of-malignancy score. Differences between modes were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model for BI-RADS-based sensitivity and specificity and with modified Obuchowski-Rockette approach for probability-of-malignancy-based area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Average probability-of-malignancy-based area under the ROC curve was 0.87 for tomosynthesis versus 0.83 for supplemental views (P < .001). With tomosynthesis, the false-positive rate decreased from 85% (989 of 1160) to 74% (864 of 1160) (P < .01) for cases that were rated BI-RADS category 3 or higher and from 57% (663 of 1160) to 48% (559 of 1160) for cases rated BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (P < .01), without a meaningful change in sensitivity. With tomosynthesis, more cancers were classified as BI-RADS category 5 (39% [226 of 576] vs 33% [188 of 576]; P = .017) without a decrease in specificity.Tomosynthesis significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for noncalcified lesions compared with supplemental mammographic views.
| S-EPMC3528971 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up.MethodsUsing individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data.FindingsFour prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005).InterpretationAlthough heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.
| S-EPMC8102709 | biostudies-literature