Comparison of prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsies with secondary analysis of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions.

OBJECTIVES: Compare prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB) in a community-practice setting and review outcomes of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions (AD). METHODS: Consecutive biopsies performed at two community-based breast centers from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Technical details of each procedure and patient outcomes were recorded. Separate analyses were performed for ultrasound-occult ADs. Two sample t-tests and Fisher's exact test facilitated comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 1133 patients underwent 369 prone DM-VABB, 324 prone DBT-VABB, 437 upright DM-VABB, and 123 upright DBT-VABB with 99.2%, 100%, 99.3%, and 99.2% success, respectively (p-values > 0.25). Mean lesion targeting times were greater for prone biopsy (minutes: 6.94 prone DM-VABB, 8.54 prone DBT-VABB, 5.52 upright DM-VABB, and 5.51 upright DBT-VABB; p-values < 0.001), yielding longer total prone procedure times for prone biopsy (p < 0.001). Compared to DM-VABB, DBT-VABB used fewer exposures (p < 0.001) and more commonly targeted AD, asymmetries, or masses (p < 0.001). Malignancy rates were similar between procedures: prone DM-VABB 22.4%, prone DBT-VABB 21.9%, upright DM-VABB 22.8%, and upright DBT-VABB 17.2% (p-values > 0.19). One hundred forty of the 1133 patients underwent 145 biopsies for ultrasound-occult AD (143 DBT-VABB and 2 DM-VABB). Biopsy yielded 27 malignancies and 47 high-risk lesions (74 of 145, 51%). Malignancy rate was 20.7% after surgical upgrade of one benign-discordant and two high-risk lesions. CONCLUSIONS: All biopsy procedure types were extremely successful. The 20.7% malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult AD confirms a management recommendation for tissue diagnosis. Upright biopsy was faster than prone biopsy, and DBT-VABB used fewer exposures than DM-VABB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results highlight important differences between prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB. Moreover, the high likelihood of malignancy for ultrasound-occult AD will provide confidence in recommending tissue diagnosis in lieu of observation or clinical follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Upright and prone stereotactic and tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies were safe and effective in the community-practice setting. • The malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult architectural distortion of 20.7% confirms the management recommendation for biopsy. • Upright procedures were faster than prone procedures, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy used fewer exposures than stereotactic biopsy.

Breast MRI: False-Negative Results and Missed Opportunities.

Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality for the detection of breast cancer. However, false-negative cases may occur, in which the cancer is not visualized at MRI and is instead diagnosed with another imaging modality. The authors describe the causes of false-negative breast MRI results, which can be categorized broadly as secondary to perceptual errors or cognitive errors, or nonvisualization secondary to nonenhancement of the tumor. Tips and strategies to avoid these errors are discussed. Perceptual errors occur when an abnormality is not prospectively identified, yet the examination is technically adequate. Careful development of thorough search patterns is critical to avoid these errors. Cognitive errors occur when an abnormality is identified but misinterpreted or mischaracterized as benign. The radiologist may avoid these errors by utilizing all available prior examinations for comparison, viewing images in all planes to better assess the margins and shapes of abnormalities, and appropriately integrating all available information from the contrast-enhanced, T2-weighted, and T1-weighted images as well as the clinical history. Despite this, false-negative cases are inevitable, as certain subtypes of breast cancer, including ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive lobular carcinoma, and certain well-differentiated invasive cancers, may demonstrate little to no enhancement at MRI, owing to differences in angiogenesis and neovascularity. MRI is a valuable diagnostic tool in breast imaging. However, MRI should continue to be used as a complementary modality, with mammography and US, in the detection of breast cancer. ©RSNA, 2021.

Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Background Limited data exist beyond prevalence rounds of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. Purpose To compare DBT outcomes over multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis included 1 year of DM and 5 years of DBT screening (September 2011 to September 2016); 67 350 examinations were performed in 29 310 women. Recall rate (RR) percentage, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) percentage, positive predictive value of biopsies performed percentage, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Cancers diagnosed within 1 year of screening were captured by means of linkage to state cancer registry, and biologic characteristics were grouped by prognostic factors. Performance trends across DBT rounds were compared with those from DM rounds by using logistic regression to account for examinations in the same woman. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, breast density, baseline examination, and reader. Results There were 56 839 DBT and 10 511 DM examinations. The mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 56 years ±11 for the entire cohort, 55 years ±11 for the DBT group, and 57 years ±11 for the DM group. RRs were significantly lower for the DBT group (8.0%, 4522 of 56 839; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7, 8.2) than for the DM group (10.4%, 1094 of 10 511; 95% CI: 9.8, 11.0) (P < .001). CDRs were higher with DBT (6.0 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 5.4, 6.7 per 1000 women screened; 340 of 56 839) than with DM (5.1 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 3.9, 6.6 per 1000 women screened; 54 of 10 511) (P = .25), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both RR and CDR remained improved compared with DM for 5 years of DBT at the population level. False-negative rates were slightly lower for DBT (0.6 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.8 per 1000 women screened; 33 of 56 839) than DM (0.9 per 1000 women screened; 0.4, 1.6 per 1000 women screened; nine of 10 511) overall (P = .30), but the difference was not statistically significant. In adjusted analyses, RR, biopsy recommendation rates, and PPV1 were improved for DBT versus DM (P ≤ .001). Compared with DM, a higher proportion of DBT-detected cancers were invasive (70% [238 of 340] vs 68.5% [37 of 54]) and had poor prognoses characteristics (32.6% [76 of 233] vs 25.0% [nine of 36]). Conclusion Favorable outcomes with digital breast tomosynthesis screening were sustained over multiple years and rounds. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening was associated with detection of a higher proportion of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Heller in this issue.

Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to improve screening outcomes compared with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, little is known about differences in breast cancer conspicuity between DM and DBT or by mammographic view. Purpose To compare conspicuity of breast cancers at DM versus DBT and by mammographic view, craniocaudal (CC) versus mediolateral oblique (MLO). Materials and Methods Lesion conspicuity was graded by three readers by using a 0-5 numerical scale on both DM and DBT images from combined DM and DBT studies for 197 consecutive screening-detected cancers in women (mean age, 60.4 years ± 11.1 [standard deviation]) from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014. Intermodality (ie, DM vs DBT) and intramodality (ie, CC vs MLO) analyses were performed. For intramodality analyses, conspicuity was analyzed by view, CC versus MLO, within the same modality. Conspicuity grades were dichotomized into low (scores 0-3) and high (scores 4 and 5) conspicuity. This binary result was assessed by using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with logit link function, random-effect intercept for reader, and compound symmetry covariance structure for lesion. Results Cancers were more likely to be high conspicuity at DBT than at DM (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 3.0; P < .01). At both DM and DBT, cancers were more likely to be high conspicuity at the CC than the MLO view (DM vs DBT OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.3, 1.9] vs 1.7 [95% CI: 1.3, 2.1], respectively; P < .01 for both). Cancers seen at one view only were more often detected at CC than MLO for both DM and DBT (DM vs DBT OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.0] vs 3.6 [95% CI: 1.9, 7.0], respectively; P < .01.). Conclusion Cancers were more conspicuous at digital breast tomosynthesis than at digital mammography. Cancers may only be detected at one of two views, and they are more likely to be seen at the craniocaudal view. © RSNA, 2019.

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.