Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3-22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected. RESULTS: Performance parameters were compared for women screened with digital mammography alone (n = 278,908) and digital mammography + tomosynthesis (n = 173,414). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography produced significant reductions in recall rates for all age groups and significant increases in cancer detection rates for women 40-69. Largest recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis was for women 40-49, decreasing from 137 (95% CI 117-156) to 115 (95% CI 95-135); difference, -22 (95% CI -26 to -18; P < .001). Simultaneous increase in invasive cancer detection rate for women 40-49 from 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-1.9) to 2.7 (95% CI 2.2-3.1) with tomosynthesis (difference, 1.1; 95% CI 0.6-1.6; P < .001) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography increased invasive cancer detection rates for women 40-69 and decreased recall rates for all age groups with largest performance gains seen in women 40-49. The similar performance seen with tomosynthesis screening for women in their 40s compared to digital mammography for women in their 50s argues strongly for commencement of mammography screening at age 40 using tomosynthesis.

Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of combining tomosynthesis with digital mammography by assessing diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography alone and digital mammography combined with one-view tomosynthesis and two-view tomosynthesis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three hundred ten cases including biopsy-proven malignancies (51), biopsy-proven benign findings (47), recalled screening cases (138), and negative screening cases (74) were reviewed by 15 radiologists sequentially using digital mammography, adding one-view tomosynthesis, and then two-view tomosynthesis. Cases were assessed for recall and assigned a BI-RADS score and probability of malignancy for each imaging method. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Screening recall rates were compared using pooled logistical regression analysis. A p value of < 0.0167 was considered significant. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for digital mammography (DM), DM plus one-view tomosynthesis, and DM plus two-view tomosynthesis was 0.828, 0.864, and 0.895, respectively. Both one-view and two-view tomosynthesis plus DM were significantly better than DM alone (Δ AUCs 0.036 [p = 0.009] and 0.068 [p < 0.001]). Average noncancer recall rates for digital mammography, DM plus one-view tomosynthesis, and DM plus two-view tomosynthesis were 44.2%, 27.2%, and 24.0%, respectively. Combined with DM, one-view and two-view tomosynthesis both showed significantly lower noncancer recall rates than digital mammography alone (p < 0.001). Digital mammography with two-view tomosynthesis showed a significantly lower recall rate than digital mammography with one-view tomosynthesis (p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy for dense (Δ AUC, 0.091%; p < 0.001) and nondense (Δ AUC, 0.035%; p = 0.001) breasts improved with DM plus two-view tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone. Compared with digital mammography, diagnostic sensitivity for invasive cancers increased with the addition of both one-view (Δ12.0%, p < 0.001) and two-view (Δ21.7%, p < 0.001) tomosynthesis. CONCLUSION: The addition of one-view tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced the recall rate; however, the addition of two-view tomosynthesis provided twice the performance gain in diagnostic accuracy while further reducing the recall rate.

Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography versus digital mammography alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained at each accruing institution. Participating women gave written informed consent. Mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal digital mammographic and tomosynthesis images of both breasts were obtained from 1192 subjects. Two enriched reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone. Study 1 comprised 312 cases (48 cancer cases) with images read by 12 radiologists; study 2, 312 cases (51 cancer cases) with 15 radiologists. Study 1 readers recorded only that an abnormality requiring recall was present; study 2 readers had additional training and recorded both lesion type and location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Recall rates of noncancer cases, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values determined by analyzing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scores were compared for the two methods. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone. Average difference in area under the curve in study 1 was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7%, 10.8%; P < .001) and in study 2 was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%, 9.5%; P < .001). All 27 radiologists increased diagnostic accuracy with addition of tomosynthesis. Recall rates for noncancer cases for all readers significantly decreased with addition of tomosynthesis (range, 6%-67%; P < .001 for 25 readers, P < .03 for all readers). Increased sensitivity was largest for invasive cancers: 15% and 22% in studies 1 and 2 versus 3% for in situ cancers in both studies. CONCLUSION: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significantly increased diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduced recall rates for noncancer cases. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120674/-/DC1.

Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

PURPOSE: To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS: Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications.

Mammography is an effective imaging tool for detecting breast cancer at an early stage and is the only screening modality proved to reduce mortality from breast cancer. However, the overlap of tissues depicted on mammograms may create significant obstacles to the detection and diagnosis of abnormalities. Diagnostic testing initiated because of a questionable result at screening mammography frequently causes patients unnecessary anxiety and incurs increased medical costs. Breast tomosynthesis, a new tool that is based on the acquisition of three-dimensional digital image data, could help solve the problem of interpreting mammographic features produced by tissue overlap. Although the technology has not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, breast tomosynthesis has the potential to help reduce recall rates, improve the selection of patients for biopsy, and increase cancer detection rates, especially in patients with dense breasts. Supplemental material available at radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/27/S231/DC1.

Dual-energy digital subtraction chest radiography: technical considerations.

In the evaluation of asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural abnormalities, conventional chest radiography has been shown to have a low sensitivity for the detection of lung nodules and subtle interstitial disease. Pleural plaques may simulate pulmonary nodules, and interstitial processes can be masked by adjacent pleural abnormalities. Dual-energy digital subtraction chest radiography may enable investigators to characterize asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural abnormalities with greater accuracy. "Soft-tissue" images, designed to remove pleural calcifications, may allow for better evaluation of the lung parenchyma. "Bone" images, designed to remove soft-tissue structures, may enhance the detection of pleural calcifications. In this pictorial essay we illustrate the methods, technical considerations, and limitations of dual-energy digital subtraction chest radiography performed with global subtraction weighting factors.

Comparative statistical properties of expected utility and area under the ROC curve for laboratory studies of observer performance in screening mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to determine whether expected utility (EU) and the area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUC) are consistent with one another as endpoints of observer performance studies in mammography. These two measures characterize receiver operator characteristic performance somewhat differently. We compare these two study endpoints at the level of individual reader effects, statistical inference, and components of variance across readers and cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reanalyze three previously published laboratory observer performance studies that investigate various x-ray breast imaging modalities using EU and AUC. The EU measure is based on recent estimates of relative utility for screening mammography. RESULTS: The AUC and EU measures are correlated across readers for individual modalities (r = 0.93) and differences in modalities (r = 0.94 to 0.98). Statistical inference for modality effects based on multi-reader multi-case analysis is very similar, with significant results (P < .05) in exactly the same conditions. Power analyses show mixed results across studies, with a small increase in power on average for EU that corresponds to approximately a 7% reduction in the number of readers. Despite a large number of crossing receiver operator characteristic curves (59% of readers), modality effects only rarely have opposite signs for EU and AUC (6%). CONCLUSIONS: We do not find any evidence of systematic differences between EU and AUC in screening mammography observer studies. Thus, when utility approaches are viable (i.e., an appropriate value of relative utility exists), practical effects such as statistical efficiency may be used to choose study endpoints.

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer. RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A(z)) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A(z) values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.