Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivities and false-detection rates of two computer-aided detection (CADe) systems when applied to digital or film-screen mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) breast cancer screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Available film-screen and digital mammograms of 161 breast cancer cases from DMIST were analyzed by two CADe systems, iCAD Second-Look and R2 ImageChecker. Three experienced breast-imaging radiologists reviewed the CADe marks generated for each available cancer case, recording the number and locations of CADe marks and whether each CADe mark location corresponded with the known location of the cancer. RESULTS: For the 161 cancer cases included in this study, the sensitivities of the DMIST reader without CAD were 0.43 (69/161, 95% CI 0.35-0.51) for digital and 0.41 (66/161, 0.33-0.49) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivities of iCAD were 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital and 0.69 (111/161, 0.61-0.76) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of iCAD was 2.57 (SD, 1.92) for digital and 3.06(1.72) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivity of R2 was 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital, and 0.60 (97/161, 0.52-0.68) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of R2 was 2.07 (1.57) for digital and 1.52 (1.45) for film-screen mammography. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the use of CADe in interpretation of digital and film-screen mammograms could lead to improvements in cancer detection.

Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine (a) how often the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 was used in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), either at the time of screening mammography or after work-up, (b) how often subjects actually returned for the recommended follow-up examination, and (c) the rate and stages of any malignancies subsequently found in subjects for whom short-term interval follow-up was recommended. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at all institutions where subjects were enrolled. All subjects participating in DMIST gave informed consent and the study was HIPAA-compliant. A total of 47,599 DMIST-eligible and evaluable subjects, all of whom consented to undergo both digital and screen-film mammography, were included in this analysis. Cases referred for short-term interval follow-up based on digital, screen-film, or both imaging examinations were determined. Compliance with the recommendations and the final outcome (malignancy diagnosis at biopsy or no malignancy confirmed through follow-up) of each evaluable case were determined. RESULTS: A total of 1114 of the 47,599 (2.34%) subjects had tumors assigned a BI-RADS 3 category and were recommended to undergo short-interval follow-up. In this study, 791 of 1114 (71%) of the subjects were compliant with the recommendation and returned for short-interval follow-up. Of the women who did not return for short-interval follow-up, 70% (226 of 323) did return for their next annual mammography. Among all subjects whose tumors were assigned a BI-RADS 3 category either at screening mammography or after additional work-up, nine of 1114 (0.81%) were found to have cancer. Of the nine biopsy-proved cancers, six were invasive cancers and three were ductal carcinoma in situ stage Tis-T1c. The invasive cancers were all less than 2 cm in size. CONCLUSION: In DMIST, radiologists used the BI-RADS 3 classification infrequently (2.3% of patients). Tumors assigned a BI-RADS 3 category had a low rate of malignancy. The relatively high rate of noncompliance with short-interval follow-up recommendations (323 of 1114, or 29%) supports prior recommendations that radiologists thoroughly evaluate lesions before placing them in this category.

Sonographic features of gynecomastia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify sonographic features of gynecomastia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on all male patients with breast symptoms imaged with breast sonography over a 5-year period. Breast sonograms in 158 men were jointly reviewed by 3 investigators. Sonograms were assessed for the presence or absence of a mass: (1) if mass present, (a) location of the mass, (b) vascularity, (c), axis, (d) appearance of posterior tissues, and (e) tissue echo texture; and (2) if mass absent, anteroposterior (AP) depth at the nipple (increased if >1 cm). RESULTS: Of the 237 men with breast symptoms, 79 with only mammography were excluded. Of the 158 who had sonography with or without mammography, 5 without gynecomastia were also excluded. A total of 153 men included in the study presented with pain (n = 38), a lump (n = 95), both pain and a lump (n = 17), or nipple discharge (n = 3). Nine of 153 with gynecomastia had a biopsy. A total of 219 sonographic examinations were performed, which revealed 73 masses (33%): 20 (27%) nodular, 20 (27%) poorly defined, and 33 (45%) flame shaped. All masses were retroareolar, with 57 (78%) hypoechoic, 54 (73%) avascular, 60 (82%) parallel to the chest wall, and 47 (64%) without posterior enhancement or shadowing. Of the 146 without masses (67%), 141 (97%) had increased AP depth at the nipple. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecomastia is a clinical diagnosis, and mammography is the primary imaging modality when indicated. However, if sonography is used when mammography is declined or when mammography is inconclusive, it is important to recognize the various described patterns of gynecomastia to avoid unnecessary biopsy based on sonographic findings.

Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

PURPOSE: To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This project was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seven radiologist readers reviewed the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factors that contributed to lesion visibility on both types of images. Two multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the combined and condensed visibility ratings assigned by the readers to the paired digital and screen-film images. RESULTS: Readers most frequently attributed differences in DMIST cancer visibility to variations in image contrast--not differences in positioning or compression--between digital and screen-film mammography. The odds of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with dense breasts than for women with nondense breasts, even with the data adjusted for patient age, lesion type, and mammography system (odds ratio, 2.28; P < .0001). The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible at digital and screen-film mammography--were significantly greater for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with the Fischer (P = .0070) and Fuji (P = .0070) devices. CONCLUSION: The significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammography, in women with dense breasts demonstrated in the DMIST was most likely attributable to differences in image contrast, which were most likely due to the inherent system performance improvements that are available with digital mammography. The authors conclude that the DMIST results were attributable primarily to differences in the display and acquisition characteristics of the mammography devices rather than to reader variability.

Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Film mammography has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer in women with radiographically dense breasts. We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitations. METHODS: A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: In the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar (difference between methods in the area under the ROC curve, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18). However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years (difference in the area under the curve, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002), women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts on mammography (difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00008346.)

Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy of digital versus film mammography in population subgroups of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) defined by combinations of age, menopausal status, and breast density, by using either biopsy results or follow-up information as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DMIST included women who underwent both digital and film screening mammography. Institutional review board approval at all participating sites and informed consent from all participating women in compliance with HIPAA was obtained for DMIST and this retrospective analysis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for each modality were compared within each subgroup evaluated (age < 50 vs 50-64 vs >or= 65 years, dense vs nondense breasts at mammography, and pre- or perimenopausal vs postmenopausal status for the two younger age cohorts [10 new subgroups in toto]) while controlling for multiple comparisons (P < .002 indicated a significant difference). All DMIST cancers were evaluated with respect to mammographic detection method (digital vs film vs both vs neither), mammographic lesion type (mass, calcifications, or other), digital machine type, mammographic and pathologic size and diagnosis, existence of prior mammographic study at time of interpretation, months since prior mammographic study, and compressed breast thickness. RESULTS: Thirty-three centers enrolled 49 528 women. Breast cancer status was determined for 42,760 women, the group included in this study. Pre- or perimenopausal women younger than 50 years who had dense breasts at film mammography comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (AUCs, 0.79 vs 0.54; P = .0015). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-based sensitivity in this subgroup was 0.59 for digital and 0.27 for film mammography. AUCs were not significantly different in any of the other subgroups. For women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts, the AUC showed a nonsignificant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025). CONCLUSION: Digital mammography performed significantly better than film for pre- and perimenopausal women younger than 50 years with dense breasts, but film tended nonsignificantly to perform better for women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts.

Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

This article outlines the reasons that many radiology practices are converting to digital mammography. In addition, it provides basic information about the issues that must be considered in making the transformation. These issues include technical matters regarding image display, storage, and retrieval as well as clinical and ergonomic considerations.

Adjunctive self-hypnotic relaxation for outpatient medical procedures: a prospective randomized trial with women undergoing large core breast biopsy.

Medical procedures in outpatient settings have limited options of managing pain and anxiety pharmacologically. We therefore assessed whether this can be achieved by adjunct self-hypnotic relaxation in a common and particularly anxiety provoking procedure. Two hundred and thirty-six women referred for large core needle breast biopsy to an urban tertiary university-affiliated medical center were prospectively randomized to receive standard care (n=76), structured empathic attention (n=82), or self-hypnotic relaxation (n=78) during their procedures. Patients' self-ratings at 1 min-intervals of pain and anxiety on 0-10 verbal analog scales with 0=no pain/anxiety at all, 10=worst pain/anxiety possible, were compared in an ordinal logistic regression model. Women's anxiety increased significantly in the standard group (logit slope=0.18, p<0.001), did not change in the empathy group (slope=-0.04, p=0.45), and decreased significantly in the hypnosis group (slope=-0.27, p<0.001). Pain increased significantly in all three groups (logit slopes: standard care=0.53, empathy=0.37, hypnosis=0.34; all p<0.001) though less steeply with hypnosis and empathy than standard care (p=0.024 and p=0.018, respectively). Room time and cost were not significantly different in an univariate ANOVA despite hypnosis and empathy requiring an additional professional: 46 min/161 dollars for standard care, 43 min/163 dollars for empathy, and 39 min/152 dollars for hypnosis. We conclude that, while both structured empathy and hypnosis decrease procedural pain and anxiety, hypnosis provides more powerful anxiety relief without undue cost and thus appears attractive for outpatient pain management.