Lobular Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Synthesized 2D Mammography: A Multireader Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the conspicuity of lobular breast cancers at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus synthesized 2D mammography (synt2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-six women (mean age 61.2 years, range 50-74 years) submitted to biopsy in our institution, from 2019 to 2021, with proven invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) were enrolled in this retrospective study. The participants underwent DBT and synt2D. Five breast radiologists, with different years of experience in breast imaging, independently assigned a conspicuity score (ordinal 6-point scale) to DBT and synt2D. Lesion conspicuity was compared, for each reader, between the synt2D overall conspicuity interpretation and DBT overall conspicuity interpretation using a Wilcoxon matched pairs test. RESULTS: A total of 50/78 (64%) cancers were detected on both synt2D and DBT by all the readers, while 28/78 (26%) cancers where not recognized by at least one reader on synt2D. For each reader, in comparison with synt2D, DBT increased significantly the conspicuity of ILC (p < 0.0001). The raw proportion of high versus low conspicuity by modality confirmed that cancers were more likely to have high conspicuity at DBT than synt2D. CONCLUSIONS: ILCs were more likely to have high conspicuity at DBT than at synt2D, increasing the chances of the detection of ILC breast cancer.

Repeat Screening Outcomes with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Synthetic Mammography for Breast Cancer Detection: Results from the Prospective Verona Pilot Study.

Background Few results are available about subsequent outcomes after screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a screening round with DBT plus synthetic mammography (SM) (hereafter, DBT+SM) and the repeat screening round with DBT with SM (hereafter, DBT+SM) or full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with FFDM screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study (Verona Pilot Study, clinical trial identification: 2015/1238) included women screened with DBT+SM between April 2015 and March 2017 and rescreened with DBT+SM or FFDM between April 2017 and March 2019. Screening performance (recall rate, cancer detection rate [CDR], and positive predictive value of recall [PPV1]) was compared with that obtained from 28 680 women screened with FFDM between 2013 and 2014 (control group). Cancer stages were compared between modalities and screening rounds. A χ2 test was used to evaluate differences. P < .05 was indicative of a statistically significant difference. Results Of 34 638 women enrolled, 32 870 (median age, 58 years; age range, 52-71 years) underwent repeat screening-16 198 with DBT+SM and 16 672 with FFDM. The CDR was higher for repeat screening with DBT+SM than for the control group with FFDM (8.1 per 1000 women screened vs 4.5 per 1000 women screened, respectively; P < .01) and was not significantly lower for repeat screening with FFDM (3.5 per 1000 women screened vs 4.5 per 1000 women screened, respectively; P = .11). Compared with the control group, there was no difference in the recall rate at repeat screening with both DBT+SM (3.71% vs 3.40%, respectively; P = .10) and FFDM (3.71% vs 3.69%, P = .92), whereas PPV1 was higher only when repeat screening was performed with DBT+SM (23.8% vs 12.0%, P < .01). At repeat screening, the proportion of cancers stage II or higher was 14.5% (19 of 131 cancers) with DBT+SM and 8.5% (five of 59 cancers) with FFDM, both of which were lower than the proportion in the control group with FFDM (30 of 110 cancers, 27.3%) (P ≤ .01). Conclusion At repeat screening, digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography depicted more cancers than full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and found a lower number of stage II cancers compared with FFDM. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Bae in this issue.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program.

Purpose To examine the outcomes of a breast cancer screening program based on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized two-dimensional (2D) mammography compared with those after full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods This prospective study included 16 666 asymptomatic women aged 50-69 years who were recruited in April 2015 through March 2016 for DBT plus synthetic 2D screening in the Verona screening program. A comparison cohort of women screened with FFDM (n = 14 423) in the previous year was included. Screening detection measures for the two groups were compared by calculating the proportions associated with each outcome, and the relative rates (RRs) were estimated with multivariate logistic regression. Results Cancer detection rate (CDR) for DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging was 9.30 per 1000 screening examinations versus 5.41 per 1000 screening examinations with FFDM (RR, 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30, 2.29). CDR was significantly higher in patients screened with DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging than in those screened with FFDM among women classified as having low breast density (RR, 1.53; 95% CI: 1.13, 2.10) or high breast density (RR, 2.86; 95% CI: 1.42, 6.25). The positive predictive value (PPV) for recall was almost doubled with DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging: 23.3% versus 12.9% of recalled patients who were screened with FFDM (RR, 1.81; 95% CI: 1.34, 2.47). The recall rate was similar between groups (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06), whereas the recall rate with invasive assessment was higher for DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging than for FFDM (RR, 1.93; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.03). The mean number of screening studies interpreted per hour was significantly lower for screening examinations performed with DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging (38.5 screens per hour) than with FFDM (60 screens per hour) (P < .001). Conclusion DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging increases CDRs with recall rates comparable to those of FFDM. DBT plus synthetic 2D imaging increased image reading time and the time needed for invasive assessments. © RSNA, 2017.

Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.

PURPOSE: We compared detection measures for breast screening strategies comprising single-reading or double-reading using standard 2D-mammography or 2D/3D-mammography, based on the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) trial. METHODS: STORM prospectively examined screen-reading in two sequential phases, 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography, in asymptomatic women participating in Trento and Verona (Northern Italy) population-based screening services. Outcomes were ascertained from assessment and/or excision histology or follow-up. For each screen-reading strategy we calculated the number of detected and non-detected (including interval) cancers, cancer detection rates (CDRs), false positive recall (FPR) measures and incremental CDR relative to a comparator strategy. We estimated the false:true positive (FP:TP) ratio and sensitivity of each mammography screening strategy. Paired binary data were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Amongst 7292 screening participants, there were 65 (including six interval) breast cancers; estimated first-year interval cancer rate was 0.82/1000 screens (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-1.79/1000). For single-reading, 35 cancers were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D-mammography, 20 cancers were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none at 2D-mammography alone (p<0.001) and 10 cancers were not detected. For double-reading, 39 cancers were detected at 2D-mammography and 2D/3D-mammography, 20 were detected only with 2D/3D-mammography compared with none detected at 2D-mammography alone (p<0.001) and six cancers were not detected. The incremental CDR attributable to 2D/3D-mammography (versus 2D-mammography) of 2.7/1000 screens (95% CI: 1.6-4.2) was evident for single and for double-reading. Incremental CDR attributable to double-reading (versus single-reading) of 0.55/1000 screens (95% CI: -0.02-1.4) was evident for 2D-mammography and for 2D/3D-mammography. Estimated FP:TP ratios showed that 2D/3D-mammography screening strategies had more favourable FP to TP trade-off and higher sensitivity, applying single-reading or double-reading, relative to 2D-mammography screening. CONCLUSION: The evidence we report warrants rethinking of breast screening strategies and should be used to inform future evaluations of 2D/3D-mammography that assess whether or not the estimated incremental detection translates into improved screening outcomes such as a reduction in interval cancer rates.

Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effect of integrating three-dimensional (3D)-mammography with 2D-mammography on radiologists' detection measures in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) trial. METHODS: STORM, a prospective population-based trial (Trento and Verona breast screening services) compared sequential screen-reading: 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography. Radiologist-specific detection measures were calculated for each screen-reading phase for eight radiologists: number of detected cancers, proportion of true-positive (TP) detection, and number and rate of false-positive (FP) recalls (FPR). We estimated the incremental cancer detection rate (CDR). RESULTS: There were 59 cancers and 395 false recalls amongst 7292 screening participants. At 2D-mammography screening, radiologist-specific TP detection ranged between 38% and 83% (median 63%; mean 60% and sd 15.4%); at integrated 2D/3D-mammography, TP detection ranged between 78% and 93% (median 87%; mean 87% and sd 5.2%). For all but one radiologist, 2D/3D-mammography improved breast cancer detection (relative to 2D-mammography) ranging between 0% and 54% (median 29%; mean 27% and sd 16.2%) increase in the proportion of detected cancers. Incremental CDR attributable to integrating 3D-mammography in screening varied between 0/1000 and 5.3/1000 screens (median 1.8/1000; mean 2.3/1000 and sd 1.6/1000). Radiologist-specific FPR for 2D-mammography ranged between 1.5% and 4.2% (median 3.1%; mean 2.9% and sd 0.87%), and FPR based on the integrated 2D/3D-mammography read ranged between 1.0% and 3.3% (median 2.4%; mean 2.2% and sd 0.72%). Integrated 2D/3D-mammography screening, relative to 2D-mammography, had the effect of reducing FP and increasing TP detection for most radiologists. CONCLUSION: There was broad variability in radiologist-specific TP detection at 2D-mammography and hence in the additional TP detection and incremental CDR attributable to integrated 2D/3D-mammography; more consistent (less variable) TP-detection estimates were observed for the integrated screen-read. Integrating 3D-mammography with 2D-mammography improves radiologists' screen-reading through improved cancer detection and/or reduced FPR, with most readers achieving both using integrated 2D/3D mammography.

Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: Increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D)-mammography (tomosynthesis) may improve breast cancer detection. We examined centre-specific effect of integrated 2D/3D mammography based on the STORM (screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography) trial. METHODS: Asymptomatic women who attended population-based screening through Trento and Verona screening centres were recruited into STORM, a prospective comparison of screen-reading in two sequential phases: 2D-mammography only and integrated 2D/3D mammography. Outcomes were the number and rates of detected cancers and of false positive recalls (FPR), and incremental cancer detection rate (CDR). Paired binary data were compared using Mc Nemar's test. RESULTS: Of 33 cancers detected in Trento, 21 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 12 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P < 0.001). Of the 26 cancers detected in Verona, 18 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 8 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P = 0.008). There were no differences between centres in baseline CDR, and incremental CDR attributable to 3D-mammography was similar for Trento (2.8/1000 screens) and for Verona (2.6/1000 screens). Trento had 239 FPR (5.7% of screens): 103 FPR at both screen-readings, 93 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 43 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p < 0.001). Verona had 156 FPR (5.2% of screens): 78 FPR at both screen-readings, 48 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 30 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p = 0.054). Estimated reduction in FPR proportion had recall been conditional to 2D/3D-mammography-positivity differed between centres (21.0% versus 11.5%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Integrated 2D/3D-mammography significantly increased cancer detection for both screening services; potential reduction in FPR is likely to differ between centres with those experiencing relatively higher FPR most likely to benefit from 2D/3D-mammography screening.

Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer. We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening. METHODS: Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography (STORM) was a prospective comparative study. We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services (Italy) from August, 2011, to June, 2012. We did screen-reading in two sequential phases-2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography-yielding paired data for each screen. Standard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read. Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology. Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers, the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens, the number and proportion of false positive recalls, and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography. We compared paired binary data with McNemar's test. FINDINGS: 7292 women were screened (median age 58 years [IQR 54-63]). We detected 59 breast cancers (including 52 invasive cancers) in 57 women. Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers. We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only (p<0.0001). Cancer detection rates were 5.3 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI 3.8-7.3) for 2D only, and 8.1 cancers per 1000 screens (6.2-10.4) for integrated 2D and 3D screening. The incremental cancer detection rate attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography was 2.7 cancers per 1000 screens (1.7-4.2). 395 screens (5.5%; 95% CI 5.0-6.0) resulted in false positive recalls: 181 at both screen reads, and 141 with 2D only versus 73 with integrated 2D and 3D screening (p<0.0001). We estimated that conditional recall (positive integrated 2D and 3D mammography as a condition to recall) could have reduced false positive recalls by 17.2% (95% CI 13.6-21.3) without missing any of the cancers detected in the study population. INTERPRETATION: Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening. FUNDING: National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Hologic, USA; Technologic, Italy.

Benign breast lesions at risk of developing cancer--a challenging problem in breast cancer screening programs: five years' experience of the Breast Cancer Screening Program in Verona (1999-2004).

BACKGROUND: Cytology and core-needle biopsies are not always sufficient to exclude malignancy in benign breast lesions (BBL) that are at risk of developing cancer, and open biopsy often is mandatory. In screening programs, open biopsies performed for lesions that are at risk of developing malignancy are considered benign. The authors of this report evaluated the impact of the screen-detected BBL at risk of developing cancer that were counted in the quota of benign breast open biopsies in the Breast Cancer Screening Program of Verona. METHODS: Benign open biopsies were subdivided into 4 groups according to their risk of developing cancer: Histo1, normal histology; Histo2, 'pure' BBL (fibroadenoma, fibrocystic disease, mastitis, adenosis); Histo3, BBL with a low risk of developing cancer (radial scar, papilloma, papillomatosis, phyllodes tumor, mucocele-like lesion); and Histo4, BBL with a high risk of developing cancer (atypical columnar cell hyperplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia). RESULTS: Of 510 open biopsies, 83 biopsies were benign, and the ratio of benign to malignant biopsies was 1:5. Histo1 was observed in 4.8% of all benign open biopsies, Histo2 was observed in 37.4%, Histo3 was observed in 31.3%, and Histo4 was observed 26.5%. CONCLUSIONS: BBL at risk of developing cancer may be numerous in screening programs. It is inappropriate to include BBL at risk of developing cancer in the overall benign open biopsy rate. The authors propose separating pure BBL from lesions at higher risk of developing cancer. To date, there is no evidence to support the premise that detecting high-risk proliferative lesions leads to benefits in terms of reduced mortality; however, these lesions need to be counted separately for future evaluations.

Role of ultrasound-guided fine needle cytology of axillary lymph nodes in breast carcinoma staging.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of cytology on axillary lymph node ultrasound-guided aspiration biopsy in the reduction of inappropriate surgery, such as the sentinel node (SN) procedure if positive, or axillary dissection if negative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cytology was performed on 159 consecutive cases, on the ultrasonographically most suspicious lymph node. Lymph node histology was used as a reference standard to determine accuracy. Four different scenarios were simulated: routine axillary ultrasonography with cytology of the lymph nodes visible at ultrasonography (A), or of only the lymph nodes suspicious at ultrasonography (B), with ultrasonography limited to clinically negative axillae and cytology of the lymph nodes visible at ultrasonography (C), or only of the lymph nodes suspicious at ultrasonography only (D). RESULTS: Cytologic sensitivity was 58.6%, specificity 100%. Immediate axillary dissection only in the case of positive cytology would have avoided 6/6 inappropriate axillary dissections and 5/34 (14.7%) inappropriate SN, compared to routine practice (immediate dissection for palpable adenopathy, SN in the remaining cases). Each of the simulated scenarios saved inappropriate surgical procedures (A: 6 dissections, 5 SNs; B: 6 dissections, 3 SNs; C: 13 SNs; D: 11 SNs) at no expense (A and B) or limited expense (C: Euro 348, D: Euro 232 for each inappropriate surgical procedure saved). CONCLUSIONS: Axillary lymph node cytology can save axillary dissections or sentinel node procedures and is recommended as routine practice. Routine axillary ultrasonography, with cytology of sonographically visible lymph nodes, followed by immediate axillary dissection only in case of positive cytology proved to be the best approach in terms of cost-benefit ratio.