Pearls and Pitfalls of Interpretation of Automated Breast US.

Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. Patients with dense breast tissue are more likely to present with interval cancers and higher-stage disease. Successful breast cancer screening outcomes rely on detection of early-stage breast cancers; therefore, several supplemental screening modalities have been developed to improve cancer detection in dense breast tissue. US is the most widely used supplemental screening modality worldwide and has been proven to demonstrate additional mammographically occult cancers that are predominantly invasive and node negative. According to the American College of Radiology, intermediate-risk women with dense breast tissue may benefit from adjunctive screening US due to the limitations of mammography. Several studies have demonstrated handheld US (HHUS) and automated breast US (AUS) to be comparable in the screening setting. The advantages of AUS over HHUS include lack of operator dependence and a formal training requirement, image reproducibility, and ability for temporal comparison. However, AUS exhibits unique features that can result in high false-positive rates and long interpretation times for new users. Familiarity with the common appearance of benign mammographic findings and artifacts, technical challenges, and unique AUS features is essential for fast, efficient, and accurate interpretation. The goals of this article are to (a) examine the role of AUS as a supplemental screening modality and (b) review the pearls and pitfalls of AUS interpretation. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Interpretation Time Using a Concurrent-Read Computer-Aided Detection System for Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breast Tissue.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of screening automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for women with dense breast tissue without and with use of a recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective observer performance study, 18 radiologists interpreted a cancer-enriched set (i.e., cancer prevalence higher than in the original screening cohort) of 185 screening ABUS studies (52 with and 133 without breast cancer). These studies were from a large cohort of ABUS-screened patients interpreted as BI-RADS density C or D. Each reader interpreted each case twice in a counterbalanced study, once without the CAD system and once with it, separated by 4 weeks. For each case, each reader identified abnormal findings and reported BI-RADS assessment category and level of suspicion for breast cancer. Interpretation time was recorded. Level of suspicion data were compared to evaluate diagnostic accuracy by means of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method of jackknife with ANOVA ROC analysis. Interpretation times were compared by ANOVA. RESULTS: The ROC AUC was 0.848 with the CAD system, compared with 0.828 without it, for a difference of 0.020 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.051) and was statistically noninferior to the AUC without the CAD system with respect to a margin of -0.05 (p = 0.000086). The mean interpretation time was 3 minutes 33 seconds per case without the CAD system and 2 minutes 24 seconds with it, for a difference of 1 minute 9 seconds saved (95% CI, 44-93 seconds; p = 0.000014), or a reduction in interpretation time to 67% of the time without the CAD system. CONCLUSION: Use of the concurrent-read CAD system for interpretation of screening ABUS studies of women with dense breast tissue who do not have symptoms is expected to make interpretation significantly faster and produce noninferior diagnostic accuracy compared with interpretation without the CAD system.

Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate positioning of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with film-screen (FS) mammography positioning standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent screening FFDM in 2010-2012 and DBT in 2012-2013 at an academic institution. Examinations were performed by five experienced technologists who underwent updated standardized positioning training. Positioning criteria were assessed by consensus reads among three breast radiologists and compared with FS mammography data from a 1993 study by Bassett and colleagues. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients (n = 340 examinations) were analyzed, showing significant differences between FFDM and DBT examinations (p < 0.05) for medial or inferior skin folds (FFDM vs DBT: craniocaudal [CC] view, 16% [n = 56] vs 23% [n = 77]; mediolateral oblique [MLO] view, 35% [n = 118] vs 45% [n = 154]), inclusion of lateral glandular tissue on CC view (FFDM vs DBT, 73% [n = 247] vs 81% [n = 274]), and concave pectoralis muscle shape (FFDM vs DBT, 36% [n = 121] vs 28% [n = 95]). In comparison with Bassett et al. data, all positioning criteria for both FFDM and DBT examinations were significantly different (p < 0.05). The largest differences were found in visualization of the pectoralis muscle on CC views and the inframammary fold on MLO views, inclusion of posterior or lateral glandular tissue, and inclusion of skin folds, with DBT and FFDM more frequently exhibiting all criteria than originally reported Bassett et al. CONCLUSION: DBT and FFDM mammograms more frequently include posterior or lateral tissue, the inframammary fold on MLO views, the pectoralis muscle on CC views, and skin folds than FS mammograms. Inclusion of more breast tissue with newer technologies suggests traditional positioning standards, in conjunction with updated standardized positioning training, are still applicable at the expense of including more skin folds.

Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess and compare, in a reader study, radiologists' performance in the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone and using FFDM with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multireader, multicase, sequential-design reader study, 17 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists interpreted a cancer-enriched set of FFDM and ABUS examinations. All imaging studies were of asymptomatic women with BI-RADS C or D breast density. Readers first interpreted FFDM alone and subsequently interpreted FFDM combined with ABUS. The analysis included 185 cases: 133 noncancers and 52 biopsy-proven cancers. Of the 52 cancer cases, the screening FFDM images were interpreted as showing BI-RADS 1 or 2 findings in 31 cases and BI-RADS 0 findings in 21 cases. For the cases interpreted as BI-RADS 0, a forced BI-RADS score was also given. Reader performance was compared in terms of AUC under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.72 for FFDM alone and 0.82 for FFDM combined with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant 14% relative improvement in AUC (i.e., change in AUC = 0.10 [95% CI, 0.07-0.14]; p < 0.001). When a cutpoint of BI-RADS 3 was used, the sensitivity across all readers was 57.5% for FFDM alone and 74.1% for FFDM with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant increase in sensitivity (p < 0.001) (relative increase = 29%). Overall specificity was 78.1% for FFDM alone and 76.1% for FFDM with ABUS (p = 0.496). For only the mammography-negative cancers, the average AUC was 0.60 for FFDM alone and 0.75 for FFDM with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant 25% relative improvement in AUC with the addition of ABUS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Combining mammography with ABUS, compared with mammography alone, significantly improved readers' detection of breast cancers in women with dense breast tissue without substantially affecting specificity.

Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.

PURPOSE: To determine improvement in breast cancer detection by using supplemental three-dimensional (3D) automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) with screening mammography versus screening mammography alone in asymptomatic women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. The SomoInsight Study was an observational, multicenter study conducted between 2009 and 2011. A total of 15 318 women (mean age, 53.3 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; range, 25-94 years) presenting for screening mammography alone with heterogeneously (50%-75%) or extremely (>75%) dense breasts were included, regardless of further risk characterization, and were followed up for 1 year. Participants underwent screening mammography alone followed by an AB US examination; results were interpreted sequentially. McNemar test was used to assess differences in cancer detection. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed at screening in 112 women: 82 with screening mammography and an additional 30 with AB US. Addition of AB US to screening mammography yielded an additional 1.9 detected cancers per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.7; P < .001). Of cancers detected with screening mammography, 62.2% (51 of 82) were invasive versus 93.3% (28 of 30) of additional cancers detected with AB US (P = .001). Of the 82 cancers detected with either screening mammography alone or the combined read, 17 were detected with screening mammography alone. Of these, 64.7% (11 of 17) were ductal carcinoma in situ versus 6.7% (two of 30) of cancers detected with AB US alone. Sensitivity for the combined read increased by 26.7% (95% CI: 18.3%, 35.1%); the increase in the recall rate per 1000 women screened was 284.9 (95% CI: 278.0, 292.2; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dense breasts increased the cancer detection yield of clinically important cancers, but it also increased the number of false-positive results.

Automated Breast Ultrasound Interpretation Times: A Reader Performance Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the average time for breast radiologists of varied experience to interpret automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reader performance study was conducted on female patients, with ACR BI-RADS 4 breast density classifications of C or D, who received both an ABUS screening examination and a digital mammogram from 2013 to 2014 at an academic institution. Three faculty breast radiologists with varied levels of ABUS experience (advanced, intermediate, novice) read all ABUS examinations, with interpretation times and final impressions (categorized as "normal" or "abnormal") recorded for each examination. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included, with all readers demonstrating an average ABUS interpretation time of less than 3 minutes. Compared to the other two readers, the intermediate reader had a significantly longer mean interpretation time at 2.6 minutes (95% confidence interval 2.4-2.8; P < .001). In addition to having the shortest mean interpretation time, the novice reader also demonstrated reduced times in subsequent interpretations, with a significant decrease in interpretation times of 3.1 seconds (95% confidence interval 0.4-5.8) for every 10 ABUS examinations interpreted (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, mean ABUS interpretation time by radiologists of all experience levels was short, at less than 3 minutes per examination, which should not deter radiologists from incorporating ABUS examinations into a busy clinical environment.