Dataset Information

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Zuley ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3528971 | biostudies-other | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

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.

Project description:To determine if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) performs comparably to mammographic spot views (MSVs) in characterizing breast masses as benign or malignant.This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study obtained informed consent from all subjects. Four blinded Mammography Quality Standards Act-certified academic radiologists individually evaluated DBT images and MSVs of 67 masses (30 malignant, 37 benign) in 67 women (age range, 34-88 years). Images were viewed in random order at separate counterbalanced sessions and were rated for visibility (10-point scale), likelihood of malignancy (12-point scale), and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Differences in mass visibility were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Reader performance was measured by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) and partial area index above a sensitivity threshold of 0.90 (A(z)(0.90)) by using likelihood of malignancy ratings. Masses categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5 were compared with histopathologic analysis to determine true-positive results for each modality.Mean mass visibility ratings were slightly better with DBT (range, 3.2-4.4) than with MSV (range, 3.8-4.8) for all four readers, with one reader's improvement achieving statistical significance (P = .001). The A(z) ranged 0.89-0.93 for DBT and 0.88-0.93 for MSV (P ≥ .23). The A(z)((0.90)) ranged 0.36-0.52 for DBT and 0.25-0.40 for MSV (P ≥ .20). The readers characterized seven additional malignant masses as BI-RADS 4 or 5 with DBT than with MSV, at a cost of five false-positive biopsy recommendations, with a mean of 1.8 true-positive (range, 0-3) and 1.3 false-positive (range, -1 to 4) assessments per reader.In this small study, mass characterization in terms of visibility ratings, reader performance, and BI-RADS assessment with DBT was similar to that with MSVs. Preliminary findings suggest that MSV might not be necessary for mass characterization when performing DBT.

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.

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.

Project description:Importance:Expensive and lengthy clinical trials can delay regulatory evaluation of innovative technologies, affecting patient access to high-quality medical products. Simulation is increasingly being used in product development but rarely in regulatory applications. Objectives:To conduct a computer-simulated imaging trial evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a replacement for digital mammography (DM) and to compare the results with a comparative clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants:The simulated Virtual Imaging Clinical Trial for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) trial was designed to replicate a clinical trial that used human patients and radiologists. Images obtained with in silico versions of DM and DBT systems via fast Monte Carlo x-ray transport were interpreted by a computational reader detecting the presence of lesions. A total of 2986 synthetic image-based virtual patients with breast sizes and radiographic densities representative of a screening population and compressed thicknesses from 3.5 to 6 cm were generated using an analytic approach in which anatomical structures are randomly created within a predefined breast volume and compressed in the craniocaudal orientation. A positive cohort contained a digitally inserted microcalcification cluster or spiculated mass. Main Outcomes and Measures:The trial end point was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between modalities for lesion detection. The trial was sized for an SE of 0.01 in the change in area under the curve (AUC), half the uncertainty in the comparative clinical trial. Results:In this trial, computational readers analyzed 31?055 DM and 27?960 DBT cases from 2986 virtual patients with the following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System densities: 286 (9.6%) extremely dense, 1200 (40.2%) heterogeneously dense, 1200 (40.2%) scattered fibroglandular densities, and 300 (10.0%) almost entirely fat. The mean (SE) change in AUC was 0.0587 (0.0062) (P?<?.001) in favor of DBT. The change in AUC was larger for masses (mean [SE], 0.0903 [0.008]) than for calcifications (mean [SE], 0.0268 [0.004]), which was consistent with the findings of the comparative trial (mean [SE], 0.065 [0.017] for masses and -0.047 [0.032] for calcifications). Conclusions and Relevance:The results of the simulated VICTRE trial are consistent with the performance seen in the comparative trial. While further research is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings, in silico imaging trials represent a viable source of regulatory evidence for imaging devices.

Dataset Information

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure