Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST).

PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone or combined with technologist-performed handheld screening ultrasound (US) in women with dense breasts. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant multicenter protocol in western Pennsylvania, 6,179 women consented to three rounds of annual screening, interpreted by two radiologist observers, and had appropriate follow-up. Primary analysis was based on first observer results. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 54.8 years (range, 40-75 years). Across 17,552 screens, there were 126 cancer events in 125 women (7.2/1,000; 95% CI, 5.9 to 8.4). In year 1, DBT-alone cancer yield was 5.0/1,000, and of DBT+US, 6.3/1,000, difference 1.3/1,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.1; P = .005). In years 2 + 3, DBT cancer yield was 4.9/1,000, and of DBT+US, 5.9/1,000, difference 1.0/1,000 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.5; P < .001). False-positive rate increased from 7.0% for DBT in year 1 to 11.5% for DBT+US and from 5.9% for DBT in year 2 + 3 to 9.7% for DBT+US (P < .001 for both). Nine cancers were seen only by double reading DBT and one by double reading US. Ten interval cancers (0.6/1,000 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9]) were identified. Despite reduction in specificity, addition of US improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with area under receiver operating characteristic curve increasing from 0.83 for DBT alone to 0.92 for DBT+US in year 1 (P = .01), with smaller improvements in subsequent years. Of 6,179 women, across all 3 years, 172/6,179 (2.8%) unique women had a false-positive biopsy because of DBT as did another 230/6,179 (3.7%) women because of US (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall added cancer detection rate of US screening after DBT was modest at 19/17,552 (1.1/1,000; CI, 0.5- to 1.6) screens but potentially overcomes substantial increases in false-positive recalls and benign biopsies.

Optoacoustic Breast Imaging: Imaging-Pathology Correlation of Optoacoustic Features in Benign and Malignant Breast Masses.

OBJECTIVE: Optoacoustic ultrasound breast imaging is a fused anatomic and functional modality that shows morphologic features, as well as hemoglobin amount and relative oxygenation within and around breast masses. The purpose of this study is to investigate the positive predictive value (PPV) of optoacoustic ultrasound features in benign and malignant masses. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this study, 92 masses assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4, or 5 in 94 subjects were imaged with optoacoustic ultrasound. Each mass was scored by seven blinded independent readers according to three internal features in the tumor interior and two external features in its boundary zone and periphery. Mean and median optoacoustic ultrasound scores were compared with histologic findings for biopsied masses and nonbiopsied BI-RADS category 3 masses, which were considered benign if they were stable at 12-month follow-up. Statistical significance was analyzed using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with a 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Mean and median optoacoustic ultrasound scores for all individual internal and external features, as well as summed scores, were higher for malignant masses than for benign masses (p < 0.0001). High external scores, indicating increased hemoglobin and deoxygenation and abnormal vessel morphologic features in the tumor boundary zone and periphery, better distinguished benign from malignant masses than did high internal scores reflecting increased hemoglobin and deoxygenation within the tumor interior. CONCLUSION: High optoacoustic ultrasound scores, particularly those based on external features in the boundary zone and periphery of breast masses, have high PPVs for malignancy and, conversely, low optoacoustic ultrasound scores have low PPV for malignancy. The functional component of optoacoustic ultrasound may help to overcome some of the limitations of morphologic overlap in the distinction of benign and malignant masses.

Downgrading and Upgrading Gray-Scale Ultrasound BI-RADS Categories of Benign and Malignant Masses With Optoacoustics: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: False-positive findings remain challenging in breast imaging. This study investigates the incremental value of optoacoustic imaging in improving BI-RADS categorization of breast masses at ultrasound. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study device is an optoacoustic breast imaging device with a handheld duplex laser and internal gray-scale ultrasound probe, fusing functional and morphologic information (optoacoustic ultrasound). In this prospective multisite study, breast masses assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5 by site radiologists underwent both gray-scale ultrasound and optoacoustic imaging with the study device. Independent reader radiologists assessed internal gray-scale ultrasound and optoacoustic ultrasound features for each mass and assigned a BI-RADS category. The percentage of mass reads for which optoacoustic ultrasound resulted in a downgrade or upgrade of BI-RADS category relative to internal gray-scale ultrasound was determined. RESULTS: Of 94 total masses, 39 were biopsy-proven malignant, 44 were biopsy-proven benign, and 11 BI-RADS category 3 masses were stable at 12-month follow-up. The sensitivity of both optoacoustic ultrasound and internal gray-scale ultrasound was 97.1%. The specificity was 44.3% for optoacoustic ultrasound and 36.4% for internal gray-scale ultrasound. Using optoacoustic ultrasound, 41.7% of benign masses or BI-RADS category 3 masses that were stable at 12-month follow-up were downgraded to BI-RADS category 2 by independent readers; 36.6% of masses assigned BI-RADS category 4A were downgraded to BI-RADS category 3 or 2, and 10.1% assigned BI-RADS category 4B were downgraded to BI-RADS category 3 or 2. Using optoacoustic ultrasound, independent readers upgraded 75.0% of the malignant masses classified as category 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5, and 49.4% of the malignant masses were classified as category 4B, 4C, or 5. CONCLUSION: Optoacoustic ultrasound resulted in BI-RADS category downgrading of benign masses and upgrading of malignant masses compared with gray-scale ultrasound.

A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic utility of an investigational optoacoustic imaging device that fuses laser optical imaging (OA) with grayscale ultrasonography (US) to grayscale US alone in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Materials and Methods This prospective, 16-site study of 2105 women (study period: 12/21/2012 to 9/9/2015) compared Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories assigned by seven blinded independent readers to benign and malignant breast masses using OA/US versus US alone. BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 masses assessed at diagnostic US with biopsy-proven histologic findings and BI-RADS 3 masses stable at 12 months were eligible. Independent readers reviewed US images obtained with the OA/US device, assigned a probability of malignancy (POM) and BI-RADS category, and locked results. The same independent readers then reviewed OA/US images, scored OA features, and assigned OA/US POM and a BI-RADS category. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated for US and OA/US. Benign and malignant mass upgrade and downgrade rates, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were compared. Results Of 2105 consented subjects with 2191 masses, 100 subjects (103 masses) were analyzed separately as a training population and excluded. An additional 202 subjects (210 masses) were excluded due to technical failures or incomplete imaging, 72 subjects (78 masses) due to protocol deviations, and 41 subjects (43 masses) due to high-risk histologic results. Of 1690 subjects with 1757 masses (1079 [61.4%] benign and 678 [38.6%] malignant masses), OA/US downgraded 40.8% (3078/7535) of benign mass reads, with a specificity of 43.0% (3242/7538, 99% confidence interval [CI]: 40.4%, 45.7%) for OA/US versus 28.1% (2120/7543, 99% CI: 25.8%, 30.5%) for the internal US of the OA/US device. OA/US exceeded US in specificity by 14.9% (P < .0001; 99% CI: 12.9, 16.9%). Sensitivity for biopsied malignant masses was 96.0% (4553/4745, 99% CI: 94.5%, 97.0%) for OA/US and 98.6% (4680/4746, 99% CI: 97.8%, 99.1%) for US (P < .0001). The negative likelihood ratio of 0.094 for OA/US indicates a negative examination can reduce a maximum US-assigned pretest probability of 17.8% (low BI-RADS 4B) to a posttest probability of 2% (BI-RADS 3). Conclusion OA/US increases the specificity of breast mass assessment compared with the device internal grayscale US alone. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2017.

Mammographic compression--a need for mechanical standardization.

BACKGROUND: A lack of consistent guidelines regarding mammographic compression has led to wide variation in its technical execution. Breast compression is accomplished by means of a compression paddle, resulting in a certain contact area between the paddle and the breast. This procedure is associated with varying levels of discomfort or pain. On current mammography systems, the only mechanical parameter available in estimating the degree of compression is the physical entity of force (daN). Recently, researchers have suggested that pressure (kPa), resulting from a specific force divided by contact area on a breast, might be a more appropriate parameter for standardization. Software has now become available which enables device-independent cross-comparisons of key mammographic metrics, such as applied compression pressure (force divided by contact area), breast density and radiation dose, between patient populations. PURPOSE: To compare the current compression practice in mammography between different imaging sites in the Netherlands and the United States from a mechanical point of view, and to investigate whether the compression protocols in these countries can be improved by standardization of pressure (kPa) as an objective mechanical parameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied the available parameters of a set of 37,518 mammographic compressions (9188 women) from the Dutch national breast cancer screening programme (NL data set) and of another set of 7171 compressions (1851 women) from a breast imaging centre in Pittsburgh, PA (US data set). Both sets were processed using VolparaAnalytics and VolparaDensity to obtain the applied average force, pressure, breast thickness, breast volume, breast density and average glandular dose (AGD) as a function of the size of the contact area between the breast and the paddle. RESULTS: On average, the forces and pressures applied in the NL data set were significantly higher than in the US data set. The relative standard deviation was larger in the US data set than in the NL data set. Breasts were compressed with a force in the high range of >15 daN for 31.1% and >20 kPa for 12.3% of the NL data set versus, respectively, 1.5% and 1.7% of the US data set. In the low range we encountered compressions with a pressure of <5 daN for 21.1% and <5 kPa for 21.7% of the US data set versus, respectively, 0.05% and 0.6% in the NL data set. Both the average and the standard deviation of the AGD were higher in the US data set. CONCLUSION: (1) Current mammographic breast compression policies lead to a wide range of applied forces and pressures, with large variations both within and between clinical sites. (2) Pressure standardization could decrease variation, improve reproducibility, and reduce the risk of unnecessary pain, unnecessary high radiation doses and inadequate image quality.

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

CONTEXT: Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS: A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION: The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS: Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.