Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is often inadequate for screening women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). The ongoing prospective Tomosynthesis or Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, or TOCEM, trial includes three annual screenings with both DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Purpose To perform interim assessment of cancer yield, stage, and recall rate when CEM is added to DBT in women with PHBC. Materials and Methods From October 2019 to December 2022, two radiologists interpreted both examinations: Observer 1 reviewed DBT first and then CEM, and observer 2 reviewed CEM first and then DBT. Effects of adding CEM to DBT on incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR), cancer type and node status, recall rate, and other performance characteristics of the primary radiologist decisions were assessed. Results Among the participants (mean age at entry, 63.6 years ± 9.6 [SD]), 1273, 819, and 227 women with PHBC completed year 1, 2, and 3 screening, respectively. For observer 1, year 1 cancer yield was 20 of 1273 (15.7 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and 29 of 1273 (22.8 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 7.1 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 3.2, 13.4]) for DBT plus CEM (P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 cancer yield was four of 1046 (3.8 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and eight of 1046 (7.6 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 3.8 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 1.0, 7.6]) for DBT plus CEM (P = .001). Year 1 recall rate for observer 1 was 103 of 1273 (8.1%) for (incidence) DBT alone and 187 of 1273 (14.7%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 84 of 1273, 6.6% [95% CI: 5.3, 8.1]; P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 recall rate was 40 of 1046 (3.8%) for DBT and 92 of 1046 (8.8%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 52 of 1046, 5.0% [95% CI: 3.7, 6.3]; P < .001). In 18 breasts with cancer detected only at CEM after integration of both observers, 13 (72%) cancers were invasive (median tumor size, 0.6 cm) and eight of nine (88%) with staging were N0. Among 1883 screenings with adequate reference standard, there were three interval cancers (one at the scar, two in axillae). Conclusion CEM added to DBT increased early breast cancer detection each year in women with PHBC, with an accompanying approximately 5.0%-6.6% recall rate increase. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04085510 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Motion Characteristics of the Functional Spinal Unit During Lumbar Disc Injection (Discography) Including Comparison Between Normal and Degenerative Levels.

OBJECTIVE: While provocation lumbar discography has been used to identify discs responsible for low back pain, the biomechanical effects of disc injection have received little attention. The purpose of this study was to assess the motion of the functional spinal unit including the endplate and facet/pedicle region during disc injection including comparison between normal and degenerative discs. SUBJECTS: Subjects represent 91 consecutive patients referred for discography with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Lateral projection vertebral motion was retrospectively analyzed at 232 levels (normal: 76 [32.8%], degenerative: 156 [67.2%]). Pre- and postinjection fluoroscopic images were size scaled, and lower endplates were superimposed on separate PowerPoint images. Upper endplate and facet/pedicle motion was separately and independently analyzed on toggled PowerPoint images, subjectively graded as prominent, intermediate, questionable/uncertain, or no motion. Disc morphology was graded using the anteroposterior/lateral postinjection disc appearance (Adams criteria). RESULTS: Prominent or intermediate endplate and facet/pedicle motion was identified at most lumbar levels with substantial overall agreement (degenerative: κ = 0.93, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.87-1.00; normal: κ = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.61-1.00). Degenerative levels were strongly associated with a lower degree of endplate and facet/pedicle motion compared with normal: ("prominent" motion grade: endplate: 61% [95/156] vs 89% [68/76], P < 0.001; facet/pedicle: 60% [93/156] vs 88% [67/76], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disc injection expands the disc space inducing endplate motion, pedicle motion, and facet translation in almost all normal and most degenerate levels. Disc injection therefore biomechanically "provokes" the entire functional spinal unit. When provoked pain is encountered during lumbar discography, contribution from the associated facet joint and myotendinous insertions should be considered.

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Background Staging newly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, high cost, and false-positive findings. The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and 99mTc sestamibi-based molecular breast imaging (MBI) in this setting is largely unknown. Purpose To compare extent-of-disease assessments by using MRI, CEM, and MBI versus pathology in women with breast cancer. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant prospective study, women with biopsy-proven breast cancer underwent MRI, CEM, and MBI between October 2014 and April 2018. Eight radiologists independently interpreted each examination result prospectively and were blinded to interpretations of findings with the other modalities. Visibility of index malignancies, lesion size, and additional suspicious lesions (malignant or benign) were compared during pathology review. Accuracy of index lesion sizing and detection of additional lesions in women without neoadjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Results A total of 102 women were enrolled and 99 completed the study protocol (mean age, 51 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; range, 32-77 years). Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed in 71 women (79 index malignancies) without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in 28 women (31 index malignancies) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 110 index malignancies, MRI, CEM, and MBI depicted 102 (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 97%), 100 (91%; 95% CI: 84%, 96%), and 101 (92%; 95% CI: 85%, 96%) malignancies, respectively. In patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic size of index malignancies was overestimated with all modalities (P = .02). MRI led to overestimation of 24% (17 of 72) of malignancies by more than 1.5 cm compared with 11% (eight of 70) with CEM and 15% (11 of 72) with MBI. MRI depicted more (P = .007) nonindex lesions, with sensitivity similar to that of CEM or MBI, resulting in lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies (13 of 46 [28%; 95% CI: 17%, 44%] for MRI; 14 of 27 [52%; 95% CI: 32%, 71%] for CEM; and 11 of 25 [44%; 95% CI: 24%, 65%] for MBI (overall P = .01). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed similar detection of all malignancies. MRI depicted more nonindex suspicious benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies. All three modalities led to overestimation of index tumor size, particularly MRI. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening. METHODS: Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50-69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds. RESULTS: 24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers. CONCLUSIONS: DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

Identification of Distant Metastatic Disease in Uterine Cervical and Endometrial Cancers with FDG PET/CT: Analysis from the ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233 Multicenter Trial.

Purpose To assess the accuracy of staging positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in detecting distant metastasis in patients with local-regionally advanced cervical and high-risk endometrial cancer in the clinical trial by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) and the Gynecology Oncology Group (GOG) (ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233) and to compare central and institutional reader performance. Materials and Methods In this prospective multicenter trial, PET/CT and clinical data were reviewed for patients enrolled in ACRIN 6671/GOG 0233. Two central readers, blinded to site read and reference standard, reviewed PET/CT images for distant metastasis. Central review was then compared with institutional point-of-care interpretation. Reference standard was pathologic and imaging follow-up. Test performance for central and site reviews of PET/CT images was calculated and receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. Generalized estimating equations and nonparametric bootstrap procedure for clustered data were used to assess statistical significance. Results There were 153 patients with cervical cancer and 203 patients with endometrial cancer enrolled at 28 sites. Overall prevalence of distant metastasis was 13.7% (21 of 153) for cervical cancer and 11.8% (24 of 203) for endometrial cancer. Central reader PET/CT interpretation demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of 54.8%, 97.7%, 79.3%, and 93.1% for cervical cancer metastasis versus 64.6%, 98.6%, 86.1%, and 95.4% for endometrial cancer, respectively. By comparison, local institutional review demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value of 47.6%, 93.9%, 55.6%, and 91.9% for cervical cancer metastasis and 66.7%, 93.9%, 59.3%, and 95.5% for endometrial cancer, respectively. For central readers, the specificity and PPV of PET/CT detection of cervical and endometrial cancer metastases were all significantly higher compared with that of local institutional review (P < .05). Central reader area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were 0.78 and 0.89 for cervical and endometrial cancer, respectively; these were not significantly different from local institutional AUC values (0.75 and 0.84, respectively; P > .05 for both). Conclusion FDG PET/CT demonstrates high specificity and PPV for detecting distant metastasis in cervical and endometrial cancer and should be included in the staging evaluation. Blinded central review of imaging provides improved specificity and PPV for the detection of metastases and should be considered for future oncologic imaging clinical trials. © RSNA, 2017.

Grouped Amorphous Calcifications at Mammography: Frequently Atypical but Rarely Associated with Aggressive Malignancy.

Purpose To determine rate of malignancy at stereotactic biopsy of amorphous calcifications with different distributions using current imaging, clinical, and histopathologic criteria. Materials and Methods From January 2009 to September 2013, this retrospective study reviewed a large set of stereotactic biopsies to identify amorphous calcifications and their clinical, imaging, and histopathologic characteristics. Calcification distribution was correlated with malignancy rate after adjusting for known risk factors using logistic regression. Results Of 1903 sequential biopsies, 546 (28.7%) were for amorphous calcifications. After excluding atypical lesions not excised and patients with more than one biopsy in the same year, 497 lesions from 494 women (median age, 52 years; age range, 30-81 years) remained. Fifty-two (10.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.9, 13.5) lesions proved malignant, with 17 of 52 (42.7%) being invasive cancers (median, 0.3 cm; range, 0.1-1.3 cm) and all 17 of them being estrogen and progesterone receptor positive and node negative. Malignancy rates in a segmental (six of 21 [28.6%]), linear (eight of 32 [25.0%]), or multiple group same quadrant (nine of 36 [25.0%]) distribution were significantly higher than malignancy rate in a solitary group of amorphous calcifications (25 of 356 [7.0%]) (P = .004, P = .003, and P = .002, respectively). Of 356 grouped amorphous calcifications, 102 (28.7%) yielded atypical results prompting excision, with three of 102 (2.9%) upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ at excision. In women younger than 50 years without a personal history of cancer, grouped amorphous calcifications showed four of 127 (3.1%) (95% CI: 0.9, 7.9) were malignant and 39 of 127 (30.7%) were atypical at final histopathology. Conclusion Biopsy of amorphous calcifications remains necessary, with an overall malignancy rate of 10.5%; only 17 of 497 (3.4%) biopsies showed invasive cancer, and all of these were estrogen and progesterone receptor positive. Grouped amorphous calcifications in women younger than 50 years without history of breast or ovarian cancer showed a low malignancy rate of 3.1% (four of 127).

Informativeness of Diagnostic Marker Values and the Impact of Data Grouping.

Assessing performance of diagnostic markers is a necessary step for their use in decision making regarding various conditions of interest in diagnostic medicine and other fields. Globally useful markers could, however, have ranges of values that are "diagnostically non-informative". This paper demonstrates that the presence of marker values from diagnostically non-informative ranges could lead to a loss in statistical efficiency during nonparametric evaluation and shows that grouping non-informative values provides a natural resolution to this problem. These points are theoretically proven and an extensive simulation study is conducted to illustrate the possible benefits of using grouped marker values in a number of practically reasonable scenarios. The results contradict the common conjecture regarding the detrimental effect of grouped marker values during performance assessments. Specifically, contrary to the common assumption that grouped marker values lead to bias, grouping non-informative values does not introduce bias and could substantially reduce sampling variability. The proven concept that grouped marker values could be statistically beneficial without detrimental consequences implies that in practice, tied values do not always require resolution whereas the use of continuous diagnostic results without addressing diagnostically non-informative ranges could be statistically detrimental. Based on these findings, more efficient methods for evaluating diagnostic markers could be developed.

Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of and interaction between the availability of prior images and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in decisions to recall women during mammogram interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Verbal informed consent was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved protocol. Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice deidentified mammograms obtained in 153 women (age range, 37-83 years; mean age, 53.7 years ± 9.3 [standard deviation]) in a mode by reader by case-balanced fully crossed study. Each study consisted of current and prior full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images and DBT images that were acquired in our facility between June 2009 and January 2013. For one reading, sequential ratings were provided by using (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current FFDM and DBT images, and (c) current FFDM, DBT, and prior FFDM images. The other reading consisted of (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current and prior FFDM images, and (c) current FFDM, prior FFDM, and DBT images. Fifty verified cancer cases, 60 negative and benign cases (clinically not recalled), and 43 benign cases (clinically recalled) were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of prior FFDM and DBT images were assessed by using a generalized linear model accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS: Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced with the addition of prior FFDM images by 34% (145 of 421) and 32% (106 of 333) without and with DBT images, respectively (P < .001). However, this recall reduction was achieved at the cost of a corresponding 7% (23 of 345) and 4% (14 of 353) reduction in sensitivity (P = .006). In contrast, availability of DBT images resulted in a smaller reduction in recall rates (false-positive interpretations) of 19% (76 of 409) and 26% (71 of 276) without and with prior FFDM images, respectively (P = .001). Availability of DBT images resulted in 4% (15 of 338) and 8% (25 of 322) increases in sensitivity, respectively (P = .007). The effects of the availability of prior FFDM images or DBT images did not significantly change regardless of the sequence in presentation (P = .81 and P = .47 for specificity and sensitivity, respectively). CONCLUSION: The availability of prior FFDM or DBT images is a largely independent contributing factor in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretation.

On the use of partial area under the ROC curve for comparison of two diagnostic tests.

Evaluation of diagnostic performance is typically based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) as its summary index. The partial area under the curve (pAUC) is an alternative index focusing on the range of practical/clinical relevance. One of the problems preventing more frequent use of the pAUC is the perceived loss of efficiency in cases of noncrossing ROC curves. In this paper, we investigated statistical properties of comparisons of two correlated pAUCs. We demonstrated that outside of the classic model there are practically reasonable ROC types for which comparisons of noncrossing concave curves would be more powerful when based on a part of the curve rather than the entire curve. We argue that this phenomenon stems in part from the exclusion of noninformative parts of the ROC curves that resemble straight-lines. We conducted extensive simulation studies in families of binormal, straight-line, and bigamma ROC curves. We demonstrated that comparison of pAUCs is statistically more powerful than comparison of full AUCs when ROC curves are close to a "straight line". For less flat binormal ROC curves an increase in the integration range often leads to a disproportional increase in pAUCs' difference, thereby contributing to an increase in statistical power. Thus, efficiency of differences in pAUCs of noncrossing ROC curves depends on the shape of the curves, and for families of ROC curves that are nearly straight-line shaped, such as bigamma ROC curves, there are multiple practical scenarios in which comparisons of pAUCs are preferable.

Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of two versions of reconstructed two-dimensional (2D) images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus the performance of standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This trial had ethical committee approval, and all participants gave written informed consent. Examinations (n = 24 901) in women between the ages of 50 and 69 years (mean age, 59.2 years) were interpreted prospectively as part of a screening trial that included independent interpretations of FFDM plus DBT and reconstructed 2D images plus DBT. Reconstructed 2D images do not require radiation exposure. Using analyses for binary data that accounted for correlated interpretations and were adjusted for reader-specific volume, two versions (initial and current) of reconstructed 2D images used during trial periods 1 (from November 22, 2010, to December 21, 2011; 12 631 women) and 2 (from January 20, 2012, to December 19, 2012; 12 270 women) were compared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DBT interpretations. RESULTS: Cancer detection rates were 8.0, 7.4, 7.8, and 7.7 per 1000 screening examinations for FFDM plus DBT in period 1, initial reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 1, FFDM plus DBT in period 2, and current reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 2, respectively. False-positive scores were 5.3%, 4.6%, 4.6%, and 4.5%, respectively. Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed significant differences for period 1 (P = .012) but not for period 2 (ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11; P = .85). CONCLUSION: The combination of current reconstructed 2D images and DBT performed comparably to FFDM plus DBT and is adequate for routine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms.

Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

PURPOSE: To assess interpretation performance and radiation dose when two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images are used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A fully crossed, mode-balanced multicase (n = 123), multireader (n = 8), retrospective observer performance study was performed by using deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with institutional review board approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols, during which each patient signed informed consent. The cohort included 36 cases of biopsy-proven cancer, 35 cases of biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 52 normal or benign cases (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] score of 1 or 2) with negative 1-year follow-up results. Accuracy of sequentially reported probability of malignancy ratings and seven-category forced BI-RADS ratings was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: Probability of malignancy-based mean AUCs for SM and FFDM images alone was 0.894 and 0.889, respectively (difference, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.062, 0.054; P = .85). Mean AUC for SM with tomosynthesis and FFDM with tomosynthesis was 0.916 and 0.939, respectively (difference, 0.023; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.057; P = .19). In terms of the reader-specific AUCs, five readers performed better with SM alone versus FFDM alone, and all eight readers performed better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052). Similar results were obtained by using a nonparametric analysis of forced BI-RADS ratings. CONCLUSION: SM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis is comparable in performance to FFDM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis and may eliminate the need for FFDM as part of a routine clinical study.

Designing for sensory adaptation: what you see depends on what you've been looking at - Recommendations, guidelines and standards should reflect this.

Sensory systems continuously recalibrate their responses according to the current stimulus environment. As a result, perception is strongly affected by the current and recent context. These adaptative changes affect both sensitivity (e.g., habituating to noise, seeing better in the dark) and appearance (e.g. how things look, what catches attention) and adjust to many perceptual properties (e.g. from light level to the characteristics of someone's face). They therefore have a profound effect on most perceptual experiences, and on how and how well the senses work in different settings. Characterizing the properties of adaptation, how it manifests, and when it influences perception in modern environments can provide insights into the diversity of human experience. Adaptation could also be leveraged both to optimize perceptual abilities (e.g. in visual inspection tasks like radiology) and to mitigate unwanted consequences (e.g. exposure to potentially unhealthy stimulus environments).

Organizational Breast Cancer Data Mart: A Solution for Assessing Outcomes of Imaging and Treatment.

PURPOSE: In the United States, a comprehensive national breast cancer registry (CR) does not exist. Thus, care and coverage decisions are based on data from population subsets, other countries, or models. We report a prototype real-world research data mart to assess mortality, morbidity, and costs for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: With institutional review board approval and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) compliance, a multidisciplinary clinical and research data warehouse (RDW) expert group curated demographic, risk, imaging, pathology, treatment, and outcome data from the electronic health records (EHR), radiology (RIS), and CR for patients having breast imaging and/or a diagnosis of breast cancer in our institution from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2020. Domains were defined by prebuilt views to extract data denormalized according to requirements from the existing RDW using an export, transform, load pattern. Data dictionaries were included. Structured query language was used for data cleaning. RESULTS: Five-hundred eighty-nine elements (EHR 311, RIS 211, and CR 67) were mapped to 27 domains; all, except one containing CR elements, had cancer and noncancer cohort views, resulting in a total of 53 views (average 12 elements/view; range, 4-67). EHR and RIS queries returned 497,218 patients with 2,967,364 imaging examinations and associated visit details. Cancer biology, treatment, and outcome details for 15,619 breast cancer cases were imported from the CR of our primary breast care facility for this prototype mart. CONCLUSION: Institutional real-world data marts enable comprehensive understanding of care outcomes within an organization. As clinical data sources become increasingly structured, such marts may be an important source for future interinstitution analysis and potentially an opportunity to create robust real-world results that could be used to support evidence-based national policy and care decisions for breast cancer.

Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

PURPOSE: To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS: Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

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

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental mammography views in classification of masses, distortions, and asymmetries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Tomosynthesis significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for noncalcified lesions compared with supplemental mammographic views.

Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.

OBJECTIVES: To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening. METHODS: A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A-2D; Arm B-2D + CAD; Arm C-2D + 3D; Arm D-synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Pre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Double reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. • Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. • Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.

On use of partial area under the ROC curve for evaluation of diagnostic performance.

Evaluation of diagnostic performance is a necessary component of new developments in many fields including medical diagnostics and decision making. The methodology for statistical analysis of diagnostic performance continues to develop, offering new analytical tools for conventional inferences and solutions for novel and increasingly more practically relevant questions. In this paper, we focus on the partial area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve or pAUC. This summary index is considered to be more practically relevant than the area under the entire ROC curve (AUC), but because of several perceived limitations, it is not used as often. To improve interpretation, results for pAUC analysis are frequently reported using a rescaled index such as the standardized partial AUC proposed by McClish (1989). We derive two important properties of the relationship between the 'standardized' pAUC and the defined range of interest, which could facilitate a wider and more appropriate use of this important summary index. First, we mathematically prove that the 'standardized' pAUC increases with increasing range of interest for practically common ROC curves. Second, using comprehensive numerical investigations, we demonstrate that, contrary to common belief, the uncertainty about the estimated standardized pAUC can either decrease or increase with an increasing range of interest. Our results indicate that the partial AUC could frequently offer advantages in terms of statistical uncertainty of the estimation. In addition, selection of a wider range of interest will likely lead to an increased estimate even for standardized pAUC.

Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis of Patient Preferences for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI as Supplemental Screening Options for Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To guide implementation of supplemental breast screening by assessing patient preferences for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol, from March 23 to June 3, 2022, we contacted 579 women who had both CEM screening and MRI. Women were e-mailed an invitation to complete an online survey developed using an AHP-based model to elicit preferences for CEM or MRI. Methods for categorical data analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting preferences, under the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity. RESULTS: Complete responses were received from 222 (38.3%) women; the 189 women with a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age 61.8 years, and the 34 women without a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age of 53.6 years. Of 222 respondents, 157 (70.7%, confidence interval [CI]: 64.7-76.7) were determined to prefer CEM to MRI. Breast positioning was the most important criterion for 74 of 222 (33.3%) respondents, with claustrophobia, intravenous line placement, and overall stress most important for 38, 37, and 39 women (17.1%, 16.7%, and 17.6%), respectively, and noise level, contrast injection, and indifference being emphasized least frequently (by 10 [4.5%], 11 [5.0%], and 13 [5.9%] women, respectively). CEM preference was most prevalent (MRI least prevalent) for respondents emphasizing claustrophobia (37 of 38 [97%], CI: 86.2-99.9); CEM preference was least prevalent (MRI most prevalent) for respondents emphasizing breast positioning (40 of 74 [54%], CI: 42.1-65.7). CONCLUSIONS: AHP-based modeling reveals strong patient preferences for CEM over MRI, with claustrophobia favoring preference for CEM and breast positioning relatively favoring preference for MRI. Our results should help guide implementation of screening CEM and MRI.

Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis.

Purpose: Radiologists and other image readers spend prolonged periods inspecting medical images. The visual system can rapidly adapt or adjust sensitivity to the images that an observer is currently viewing, and previous studies have demonstrated that this can lead to pronounced changes in the perception of mammogram images. We compared these adaptation effects for images from different imaging modalities to explore both general and modality-specific consequences of adaptation in medical image perception. Approach: We measured perceptual changes induced by adaptation to images acquired by digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), which have both similar and distinct textural properties. Participants (nonradiologists) adapted to images from the same patient acquired from each modality or for different patients with American College of Radiology-Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of dense or fatty tissue. The participants then judged the appearance of composite images formed by blending the two adapting images (i.e., DM versus DBT or dense versus fatty in each modality). Results: Adaptation to either modality produced similar significant shifts in the perception of dense and fatty textures, reducing the salience of the adapted component in the test images. In side-by-side judgments, a modality-specific adaptation effect was not observed. However, when the images were directly fixated during adaptation and testing, so that the textural differences between the modalities were more visible, significantly different changes in the sensitivity to the noise in the images were observed. Conclusions: These results confirm that observers can readily adapt to the visual properties or spatial textures of medical images in ways that can bias their perception of the images, and that adaptation can also be selective for the distinctive visual features of images acquired by different modalities.