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.

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.

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.

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.

Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess diagnostic performance when retrospectively interpreting full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and breast tomosynthesis examinations under a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) paradigm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed FROC analysis of a previously reported study in which eight experienced radiologists interpreted 125 examinations, including 35 with verified cancers. The FROC paradigm involves detecting, locating, and rating each suspected abnormality. Radiologists reviewed and rated both FFDM alone and a combined display mode of FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (combined). Observer performance levels were assessed and compared with respect to the fraction of correctly identified abnormalities, the number of reported location-specific findings (both true and false), and their associated ratings. The analysis accounts for the number and locations of findings and the location-based ratings using a summary performance index (Λ), which is the FROC analog of the area between the receiver operating characteristic curve and the diagonal (chance) line. RESULTS: Under the FROC paradigm, each reader detected more true abnormalities associated with cancer, or a higher true-positive fraction, under the combined mode. In an analysis focused on both the number of findings and associated location-based ratings, each of the radiologists performed better under the combined mode compared with FFDM alone, with increases in Λ ranging from 5% to 34%. On average, under the combined mode radiologists achieved a 16% improvement in Λ compared with the FFDM alone mode (95% CI, 7-26%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We showed that DBT-based breast imaging in combination with FFDM could result in better performance under the FROC paradigm.

Impact of Original and Artificially Improved Artificial Intelligence-based Computer-aided Diagnosis on Breast US Interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: For breast US interpretation, to assess impact of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in original mode or with improved sensitivity or specificity. METHODS: In this IRB approved protocol, orthogonal-paired US images of 319 lesions identified on screening, including 88 (27.6%) cancers (median 7 mm, range 1-34 mm), were reviewed by 9 breast imaging radiologists. Each observer provided BI-RADS assessments (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5) before and after CADx in a mode-balanced design: mode 1, original CADx (outputs benign, probably benign, suspicious, or malignant); mode 2, artificially-high-sensitivity CADx (benign or malignant); and mode 3, artificially-high-specificity CADx (benign or malignant). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated under each modality and for standalone CADx outputs. Multi-reader analysis accounted for inter-reader variability and correlation between same-lesion assessments. RESULTS: AUC of standalone CADx was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72-0.83). For mode 1, average reader AUC was 0.82 (range 0.76-0.84) without CADx and not significantly changed with CADx. In high-sensitivity mode, all observers' AUCs increased: average AUC 0.83 (range 0.78-0.86) before CADx increased to 0.88 (range 0.84-0.90), P < 0.001. In high-specificity mode, all observers' AUCs increased: average AUC 0.82 (range 0.76-0.84) before CADx increased to 0.89 (range 0.87-0.92), P < 0.0001. Radiologists responded more frequently to malignant CADx cues in high-specificity mode (42.7% vs 23.2% mode 1, and 27.0% mode 2, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Original CADx did not substantially impact radiologists' interpretations. Radiologists showed improved performance and were more responsive when CADx produced fewer false-positive malignant cues.

Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to subjectively compare additional mammographic views to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the characterizing of known masses, architectural distortions, or asymmetries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experienced radiologists serially reviewed the imaging studies of 25 women with known masses, including full-field digital mammography (FFDM), additional views, and DBT. After review of the examinations, radiologists rated their relative preference in terms of classifying the finding in question when aided by the additional views versus aided by DBT, their combined diagnostic BI-RADS rating of the finding when both examinations were available, and whether or not they felt comfortable eliminating ultrasound in the specific cases being evaluated as a result of the DBT. RESULTS: FFDM and DBT (combined) were perceived to be better for diagnosis in 50% (50/100) of the ratings (25 cases x four readers = 100 ratings) compared with FFDM and additional diagnostic views. Over all readers, 92% of the ratings for verified cancer cases and 50% of the ratings for high-risk cases were rated as BI-RADS 4 or 5. In 12% (12/100) of the ratings, radiologists indicated that the availability of DBT would have eliminated the need for ultrasound as a part of the diagnostic process. CONCLUSION: DBT may be an alternative to obtaining additional mammographic views in most but not all cases of patients with a lesion that is not solely calcifications. In a fraction of cases, the use of DBT may eliminate the need for ultrasound.

Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To preliminarily asses if Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) can accurately reduce biopsy rates for soft tissue BI-RADS 4A or 4B lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed 60 lesions in 54 consenting patients who underwent CEDM under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant institutional review board-approved protocols. Readers provided Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System ratings sequentially for digital mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), then with ultrasound, then with CEDM for each lesion. Area under the curve (AUC), true positive rates and false positive rates, positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated. Statistical analysis accounting for correlation between lesion-examinations and between-reader variability was performed using OR/DBM (for SAS v.3.0), generalized linear mixed model for binary data (proc glimmix, SAS v.9.4, SAS Institute, Cary North Carolina), and bootstrap. RESULTS: The cohort included 49 benign, two high-risk and nine cancerous lesions in 54 women aged 34-74 (average 50) years. Reader-averaged AUC for CEDM was significantly higher than DM/DBT alone (0.85 versus 0.66, p < 0.001) or with US (0.85 versus 0.75, p = 0.001). CEDM increased true positive rates from 0.74 under DB/DBT, and 0.89 with US, to 0.90 with CEDM, (p = 0.019 DM/DBT versus CEDM, p = 0.78 DM/DBT + US versus CEDM) and decreased false positive rates from 0.47 using DM/DBT and 0.61 with US to 0.39 with CEDM (p = 0.017 DM/DBT versus CEDM, p = 0.001 DM/DBT+ US versus CEDM). For an expected cancer rate of 10%, CEDM positive predictive values was 20.5% (95% CI: 16%-27%) and negative predictive values 98.3% (95% CI: 96%-100%). CONCLUSION: Addition of CEDM for evaluation of low-moderate suspicion soft tissue breast lesions can substantially reduce biopsy of benign lesions without compromising cancer detection.

A Prospective Study of Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening of Women with Dense Breasts in a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-based Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prospectively the interpretative performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as a supplemental screening after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or as a standalone screening of women with dense breast tissue. METHODS: Under an IRB-approved protocol (written consent required), women with dense breasts prospectively underwent concurrent baseline DBT and ABUS screening. Examinations were independently evaluated, in opposite order, by two of seven Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists, with the primary radiologist arbitrating disagreements and making clinical management recommendations. We report results for 1111 screening examinations (598 first year and 513 second year) for which all diagnostic workups are complete. Imaging was also retrospectively reviewed for all cancers. Statistical assessments used a 0.05 significance level and accounted for correlation between participants' examinations. RESULTS: Of 1111 women screened, primary radiologists initially "recalled" based on DBT alone (6.6%, 73/1111, CI: 5.2%-8.2%), of which 20 were biopsied, yielding 6/8 total cancers. Automated breast ultrasound increased recalls overall to 14.4% (160/1111, CI: 12.4%-16.6%), with 27 total biopsies, yielding 1 additional cancer. Double reading of DBT alone increased the recall rate to 10.7% (119/1111), with 21 biopsies, with no improvement in cancer detection. Double reading ABUS increased the recall rate to 15.2% (169/1111, CI: 13.2%-17.5%) of women, of whom 22 were biopsied, yielding the detection of 7 cancers, including one seen only on double reading ABUS. Inter-radiologist agreement was similar for recall recommendations from DBT (κ = 0.24, CI: 0.14-0.34) and ABUS (κ = 0.23, CI: 0.15-0.32). Integrated assessments from both readers resulted in a recall rate of 15.1% (168/1111, CI: 13.1%-17.4%). CONCLUSION: Supplemental or standalone ABUS screening detected cancers not seen on DBT, but substantially increased noncancer recall rates.

Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare in a retrospective observer study the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with that of digital breast tomosynthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight experienced radiologists interpreted images from 125 selected examinations, 35 with verified findings of cancer and 90 with no finding of cancer. The four display conditions included FFDM alone, 11 low-dose projections, reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis images, and a combined display mode of FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis images. Observers rated examinations using the screening BI-RADS rating scale and the free-response receiver operating characteristic paradigm. Observer performance levels were measured as the proportion of examinations prompting recall of patients for further diagnostic evaluation. The results were presented in terms of true-positive fraction and false-positive fraction. Performance levels were compared among the acquisitions and reading modes. Time to view and interpret an examination also was evaluated. RESULTS: Use of the combination of digital breast tomosynthesis and FFDM was associated with 30% reduction in recall rate for cancer-free examinations that would have led to recall if FFDM had been used alone (p < 0.0001 for the participating radiologists, p = 0.047 in the context of a generalized population of radiologists). Use of digital breast tomosynthesis alone also tended to reduce recall rates, an average of 10%, although the observed decrease was not statistically significant (p = 0.09 for the participating radiologists). There was no convincing evidence that use of digital breast tomosynthesis alone or in combination with FFDM results in a substantial improvement in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Use of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast imaging may result in a substantial decrease in recall rate.

Reproducibility of dynamic MR imaging pelvic measurements: a multi-institutional study.

PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility of bone and soft-tissue pelvimetry measurements obtained from dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies in primiparous women across multiple centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All subjects prospectively gave consent for participation in this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. At six clinical sites, standardized dynamic pelvic 1.5-T multiplanar T2-weighted MR imaging was performed in three groups of primiparous women at 6-12 months after birth: Group 1, vaginal delivery with anal sphincter tear (n = 93); group 2, vaginal delivery without anal sphincter tear (n = 79); and group 3, cesarean delivery without labor (n = 26). After standardized central training, blinded readers at separate clinical sites and a blinded expert central reader measured nine bone and 10 soft-tissue pelvimetry parameters. Subsequently, three readers underwent additional standardized training, and reread 20 MR imaging studies. Measurement variability was assessed by using intraclass correlation for agreement between the clinical site and central readers. Acceptable agreement was defined as an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of at least 0.7. RESULTS: There was acceptable agreement (ICC range, 0.71-0.93) for eight of 19 MR imaging parameters at initial readings of 198 subjects. The remaining parameters had an ICC range of 0.13-0.66. Additional training reduced measurement variability: Twelve of 19 parameters had acceptable agreement (ICC range, 0.70-0.92). Correlations were greater for bone (ICC, >or=0.70 in five [initial readings] and eight of nine [rereadings] variables) than for soft-tissue measurements (ICC, >or=0.70 in three [initial readings] of 10 and four [rereadings] of 10 readings, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite standardized central training, there is high variability of pelvic MR imaging measurements among readers, particularly for soft-tissue structures. Although slightly improved with additional training, measurement variability adversely affects the utility of many MR imaging measurements for multicenter pelvic floor disorder research.

The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' performance during interpretation of screening mammograms in the clinic with their performance when reading the same mammograms in a retrospective laboratory study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted under an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol; the need for informed consent was waived. Nine experienced radiologists rated an enriched set of mammograms that they had personally read in the clinic (the "reader-specific" set) mixed with an enriched "common" set of mammograms that none of the participants had previously read in the clinic by using a screening Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) rating scale. The original clinical recommendations to recall the women for a diagnostic work-up, for both reader-specific and common sets, were compared with their recommendations during the retrospective experiment. The results are presented in terms of reader-specific and group-averaged sensitivity and specificity levels and the dispersion (spread) of reader-specific performance estimates. RESULTS: On average, the radiologists' performance was significantly better in the clinic than in the laboratory (P = .035). Interreader dispersion of the computed performance levels was significantly lower during the clinical interpretations (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Retrospective laboratory experiments may not represent either expected performance levels or interreader variability during clinical interpretations of the same set of mammograms in the clinical environment well.

Binary and multi-category ratings in a laboratory observer performance study: a comparison.

The authors investigated radiologists, performances during retrospective interpretation of screening mammograms when using a binary decision whether to recall a woman for additional procedures or not and compared it with their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) type performance curves using a semi-continuous rating scale. Under an Institutional Review Board approved protocol nine experienced radiologists independently rated an enriched set of 155 examinations that they had not personally read in the clinic, mixed with other enriched sets of examinations that they had individually read in the clinic, using both a screening BI-RADS rating scale (recall/not recall) and a semi-continuous ROC type rating scale (0 to 100). The vertical distance, namely the difference in sensitivity levels at the same specificity levels, between the empirical ROC curve and the binary operating point were computed for each reader. The vertical distance averaged over all readers was used to assess the proximity of the performance levels under the binary and ROC-type rating scale. There does not appear to be any systematic tendency of the readers towards a better performance when using either of the two rating approaches, namely four readers performed better using the semi-continuous rating scale, four readers performed better with the binary scale, and one reader had the point exactly on the empirical ROC curve. Only one of the nine readers had a binary "operating point" that was statistically distant from the same reader's empirical ROC curve. Reader-specific differences ranged from -0.046 to 0.128 with an average width of the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of 0.2 and p-values ranging for individual readers from 0.050 to 0.966. On average, radiologists performed similarly when using the two rating scales in that the average distance between the run in individual reader's binary operating point and their ROC curve was close to zero. The 95% confidence interval for the fixed-reader average (0.016) was (-0.0206, 0.0631) (two-sided p-value 0.35). In conclusion the authors found that in retrospective observer performance studies the use of a binary response or a semi-continuous rating scale led to consistent results in terms of performance as measured by sensitivity-specificity operating points.

Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess ergonomic and diagnostic performance-related issues associated with the interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis-generated examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty selected cases were read under three different display conditions by nine experienced radiologists in a fully crossed, mode-balanced observer performance study. The reading modes included full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, the 11 low-dose projections acquired for the reconstruction of tomosynthesis images, and the reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis examination. Observers rated cases under the free-response receiver operating characteristic, as well as a screening paradigm, and provided subjective assessments of the relative diagnostic value of the two digital breast tomosynthesis-based image sets as compared with FFDM. The time to review and diagnose each case was also evaluated. RESULTS: Observer performance measures were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) primarily because of the small sample size in this pilot study, suggesting that showing significant improvements in diagnosis, if any, will require a larger study. Several radiologists did perceive the digital breast tomosynthesis image set and the projection series to be better than FFDM (p < 0.05) for diagnosing this specific case set. The time to review, interpret, and rate the examinations was significantly different for the techniques in question (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tomosynthesis-based breast imaging may have great potential, but much work is needed before its optimal role in the clinical environment is known.

A method to improve visual similarity of breast masses for an interactive computer-aided diagnosis environment.

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a method for selecting "visually similar" regions of interest depicting breast masses from a reference library to be used in an interactive computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) environment. A reference library including 1000 malignant mass regions and 2000 benign and CAD-generated false-positive regions was established. When a suspicious mass region is identified, the scheme segments the region and searches for similar regions from the reference library using a multifeature based k-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithm. To improve selection of reference images, we added an interactive step. All actual masses in the reference library were subjectively rated on a scale from 1 to 9 as to their "visual margins speculations". When an observer identifies a suspected mass region during a case interpretation he/she first rates the margins and the computerized search is then limited only to regions rated as having similar levels of spiculation (within +/-1 scale difference). In an observer preference study including 85 test regions, two sets of the six "similar" reference regions selected by the KNN with and without the interactive step were displayed side by side with each test region. Four radiologists and five nonclinician observers selected the more appropriate ("similar") reference set in a two alternative forced choice preference experiment. All four radiologists and five nonclinician observers preferred the sets of regions selected by the interactive method with an average frequency of 76.8% and 74.6%, respectively. The overall preference for the interactive method was highly significant (p < 0.001). The study demonstrated that a simple interactive approach that includes subjectively perceived ratings of one feature alone namely, a rating of margin "spiculation," could substantially improve the selection of "visually similar" reference images.

"Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast radiologists' recognition of mammograms showing cancers that they correctly detected or "missed" during clinical interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two similar experiments were conducted. In the first, 33 bilateral screening mammograms were reviewed by four breast imagers. These included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms recalled by other radiologists that were not cancer. Radiologists were asked if they had interpreted the mammogram in clinic and if the mammogram was suspicious for cancer. In the second experiment, four different breast imagers reviewed 48 mammograms that included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms that were recalled by each radiologist but were not cancer. Using chi-square analysis, the performance of the radiologists on screening mammograms they had read in clinic was compared with their performance on mammograms read in clinic by other radiologists. RESULTS: Seven of eight radiologists did not remember interpreting any of the mammograms in clinic. One radiologist correctly remembered interpreting one mammogram in clinic, but interpreted it incorrectly. Average performance showed no significant difference (P = .60) between mammograms they had interpreted in clinic and those interpreted by others. CONCLUSION: Radiologists do not remember most mammograms showing cancer that they have interpreted, either correctly or incorrectly, after they are mixed with mammograms showing cancer that were interpreted by other radiologists. Screening mammograms can be used in observer performance studies in which the interpreting radiologist participates as an observer.

Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Assess results of a prospective, single-site clinical study evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) during baseline screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under an institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant protocol, consenting women between ages 34 and 56 years scheduled for their initial and/or baseline screening mammogram underwent both full field digital mammography (FFDM) and DBT. The FFDM and the FFDM plus DBT images were interpreted independently in a reader by mode balanced approach by two of 14 participating radiologists. A woman was recalled for a diagnostic work-up if either radiologist recommended a recall. We report overall recall rates and related diagnostic outcome from the 1080 participants. Proportion of recommended recalls (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0) were compared using a generalized linear mixed model (SAS 9.3) with a significance level of P = .0294. RESULTS: The fraction of women without breast cancer recommended for recall using FFDM alone and FFDM plus DBT were 412 of 1074 (38.4%) and 274 of 1074 (25.5%), respectively (P < .001). Large inter-reader variability in terms of recall reduction was observed among the 14 readers; however, 11 of 14 readers recalled fewer women using FFDM plus DBT (5 with P < .015). Six cancers (four ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS] and two invasive ductal carcinomas [IDC]) were detected. One IDC was detected only on DBT and one DCIS cancer was detected only on FFDM, whereas the remaining cancers were detected on both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FFDM plus DBT resulted in a significant decrease in recall rates during baseline screening mammography with no reduction in sensitivity.

Integrated density of a lesion: a quantitative, mammographically derived, invariable measure.

A method for quantitatively estimating lesion "size" from mammographic images was developed and evaluated. The main idea behind the measure, termed "integrated density" (ID), is that the total x-ray attenuation attributable to an object is theoretically invariant with respect to the projected view and object deformation. Because it is possible to estimate x-ray attenuation of a lesion from relative film densities, after appropriate corrections for background, the invariant property of the measure is expected to result in an objective method for evaluating the "sizes" of breast lesions. ID was calculated as the integral of the estimated image density attributable to a lesion, relative to surrounding background, over the area of the lesion and after corrections for the nonlinearity of the film characteristic curve. This effectively provides a measure proportional to lesion volume. We computed ID and more traditional measures of size (such as "mass diameter" and "effective size") for 100 pairs of ipsilateral mammographic views, each containing a lesion that was relatively visible in both views. The correlation between values calculated for each measure from corresponding pairs of ipsilateral views were computed and compared. All three size-related measures (mass diameter, effective size, and ID) exhibited reasonable linear relationship between paired views (r2>0.7, P<0.001). Specifically, the ID measures for the 100 masses were found to be highly correlated (r2=0.9, P<0.001) between ipsilateral views of the same mass. The correlation increased substantially (r2=0.95), when a measure with linear dimensions of length was defined as the cube root of ID. There is a high degree of correlation between ID-based measures obtained from different views of the same mass. ID-based measures showed a higher degree of invariance than mass diameter or effective size.

Detection and classification performance levels of mammographic masses under different computer-aided detection cueing environments.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the impact of different computer-aided detection (CAD) cueing conditions on radiologists' performance levels in detecting and classifying masses depicted on mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an observer performance study, eight radiologists interpreted 110 subtle cases six times under different display conditions to detect depicted masses and classify them as benign or malignant. Forty-five cases depicted biopsy-proven masses and 65 were negative. One mass-based cueing sensitivity of 80% and two false-positive cueing rates of 1.2 and 0.5 per image were used in this study. In one mode, radiologists first interpreted images without CAD results, followed by the display of cues and reinterpretation. In another mode, radiologists viewed CAD cues as images were presented and then interpreted images. Free-response receiver operating characteristic method was used to analyze and compare detection performance. The receiver operating characteristic method was used to evaluate classification performance. RESULTS: At these performance levels, providing cues after initial interpretation had little effect on the overall performance in detecting masses. However, in the mode with the highest false-positive cueing rate, viewing CAD cues immediately upon display of images significantly reduced average performance for both detection and classification tasks (P < .05). Viewing CAD cues during the initial display consistently resulted in fewer abnormalities being identified in noncued regions. CONCLUSION: CAD systems with low sensitivity (< or = 80% on mass-based detection) and high false-positive rate (> or = 0.5 per image) in a dataset with subtle abnormalities had little effect on radiologists' performance in the detection and classification of mammographic masses.

Impact of and interaction between the availability of prior examinations and DBT on the interpretation of negative and benign mammograms.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the interaction between the availability of prior examinations and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in decisions to recall a woman during interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice 36 mammography examinations, each of which had current and prior full-field digital mammography images (FFDM) and DBT under a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved protocol (written consent waived). During the first reading, three sequential ratings were provided using FFDM only, followed by FFDM + DBT, and then followed by FFDM + DBT + priors. The second reading included FFDM only, then FFDM + priors, and then FFDM + priors + DBT. Twenty-two benign cases clinically recalled, 12 negative/benign examinations (not recalled), and two verified cancer cases were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of priors and DBT on decisions were assessed (P = .05 significance level) using generalized linear model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS: Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced (51%; P < .001) with the addition of DBT and with addition of priors (23%; P = .01). In absolute terms, the addition of DBT to FFDM reduced the recall rates from 0.67 to 0.42 and from 0.54 to 0.27 when DBT was available before and after priors, respectively. Recall reductions were from 0.64 to 0.54 and from 0.42 to 0.33 when priors were available before and after DBT, respectively. Regardless of the sequence in presentation, there were no statistically significant interactions between the effect of availability of DBT and priors (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of both priors and DBT are independent primary factors in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretations.