Diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D-ABUS) in a clinical screening setting-a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D-ABUS) in breast cancer screening in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had 3D-ABUS between January 2014 and January 2022 for screening were included in this retrospective study. The images were reported by 1 of 6 breast radiologists based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS). The 3D-ABUS was reviewed together with the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection yield were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 3616 studies were performed in 1555 women (breast density C/D 95.5% (n = 3455/3616), breast density A/B 4.0% (n = 144/3616), density unknown (0.5% (n = 17/3616)). A total of 259 lesions were detected on 3D-ABUS (87.6% (n = 227/259) masses and 12.4% (n = 32/259) architectural distortions). The recall rate was 5.2% (n = 188/3616) (CI 4.5-6.0%) with only 36.7% (n = 69/188) cases recalled to another date. Moreover, recall declined over time. There were 3.4% (n = 123/3616) biopsies performed, with 52.8% (n = 65/123) biopsies due to an abnormality detected in 3D-ABUS alone. Ten of 65 lesions were malignant, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 15.4% (n = 10/65) (CI 7.6-26.5%)). The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS is 2.77 per 1000 screening tests (CI 1.30-5.1). CONCLUSION: The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS in a real clinical screening setting is comparable to the results reported in previous prospective studies, with lower recall and biopsy rates. 3D-ABUS also may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 3D automated breast ultrasound screening performance in a clinical setting is comparable to previous prospective studies, with better recall and biopsy rates. KEY POINTS: • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a reliable and reproducible tool that provides a three-dimensional representation of the breast and allows image visualisation in axial, coronal and sagittal. • The diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound in a real clinical setting is comparable to its performance in previously published prospective studies, with improved recall and biopsy rates. • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a useful adjunct to mammography in dense breasts and may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined.

Comparison of breast cancer detection and depiction between planar and rotating synthetic mammography generated from breast tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: To compare breast cancer detection and depiction between planar synthetic mammography (SM) and rotating synthetic mammography (RM) generated from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a fully-crossed multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, three radiologists retrospectively reviewed 190 cases (27 malignant, 31 benign, 132 normal), once with SM alone and once with RM alone, the DBT stack of slices was not reviewed. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were computed using MRMC Analysis of Variance using the open-access software iMRMC. Additionally, readers were asked to make a visual grading analysis (VGA) on visibility of calcifications and soft tissue lesions (1-5 scale with 5 = Excellent visualization). The VGA scores were analyzed using the visual grading characteristics (VGC) method. RESULTS: On average, the AUC was similar between SM and RM (0.66 versus 0.67, P = 0.818). The sensitivity was equivalent (0.62 versus 0.60, P = 0.794), while specificity was significantly lower in SM than in RM (0.66 versus 0.72, P = 0.028). Radiologists significantly (P < 0.05) preferred the display of all types of lesions in RM over SM. The average reading time per case was higher for RM than for SM (30 s versus 23 s, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Radiologists achieve similar cancer detection with RM as with SM. They prefer the 3D-like rotating representation of soft tissue lesions and calcifications in comparison to the 2D visualization, which might improve their specificity, but at the expense of longer reading time.

One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. RESULTS: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69-79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. CONCLUSION: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. KEY POINTS: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography. • One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT. • Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.

Automated detection of breast cancer in false-negative screening MRI studies from women at increased risk.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of an automated computer-aided detection (CAD) system to detect breast cancers that were overlooked or misinterpreted in a breast MRI screening program for women at increased risk. METHODS: We identified 40 patients that were diagnosed with breast cancer in MRI and had a prior MRI examination reported as negative available. In these prior examinations, 24 lesions could retrospectively be identified by two breast radiologists in consensus: 11 were scored as visible and 13 as minimally visible. Additionally, 120 normal scans were collected from 120 women without history of breast cancer or breast surgery participating in the same MRI screening program. A fully automated CAD system was applied to this dataset to detect malignant lesions. RESULTS: At 4 false-positives per normal case, the sensitivity for the detection of cancer lesions that were visible or minimally visible in retrospect in prior-negative examinations was 0.71 (95% CI=0.38-1.00) and 0.31 (0.07-0.59), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of cancers that were misinterpreted or overlooked in an MRI screening program was detected by a CAD system in prior-negative examinations. It has to be clarified with further studies if such a CAD system has an influence on the number of misinterpreted and overlooked cancers in clinical practice when results are given to a radiologist.

Minimal impact of adjuvant exemestane or tamoxifen treatment on mammographic breast density in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a Dutch TEAM trial analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density is one of the strongest independent risk factors for developing breast cancer. We examined the effect of exemestane and tamoxifen on breast density in Dutch postmenopausal early breast cancer patients participating in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analogue mammograms of selected TEAM participants before start, and after one and two (and if available after three) years of adjuvant endocrine therapy were collected centrally and reviewed. Study endpoints were change in breast density over time, and correlations between breast density and locoregional recurrence (LRR), distance recurrence (DR), and contralateral breast cancer (CBC). RESULTS: Mammograms of 378 patients (181 tamoxifen, 197 exemestane) were included in the current per protocol analyses. Baseline breast density was low (breast density score<50% in 75% of patients) and not different between patients randomised to exemestane or tamoxifen (coefficient 0.16, standard error 0.17). Breast density did not change during treatment in exemestane (p=0.25) or tamoxifen users (p=0.59). No relation was observed between breast density and the occurrence of a LRR [hazards ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.45-1.68, p=0.67], a DR (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.35, p=0.90), or CBC (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63-2.72, p=0.48). CONCLUSION: The in general low breast density score in early postmenopausal breast cancer patients did not substantially change over time, and this pattern was not different between tamoxifen and exemestane users. Breast density was not a predictive marker for efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

One-day core needle biopsy in a breast clinic: 4 years experience.

Many attempts have been made to combine the high diagnostic accuracy and conclusive rate of core needle biopsy (CNB) with the speed of fine needle aspiration cytology in evaluation of solid breast lesions. Multiple hybrid techniques have been developed to achieve this. We describe a cohort of patients for whom we used a relatively new, accelerated method of CNB processing, allowing for a definitive diagnosis the same day. All patients visiting the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre breast clinic during a 4-year period were reviewed to identify all CNBs in this period performed in a same-day diagnosis track. CNB result was compared to post-operative pathology reports when available, and to follow-up when patients were not surgically treated. 1,060 patients underwent CNB of 1,383 lesions, 898 of which in a same-day diagnosis track with a sensitivity of 96.9 % and a specificity of 99.4 %. The inconclusive rate was 9.2 %. For a same-day diagnosis for solid breast lesions, we could give a conclusive diagnosis with accelerated CNB processing in 65 % of our patients requiring CNB. This technique can be used reliably in a same-day diagnosis breast clinic with a very high sensitivity, specificity, and conclusive rate.