Top

Published in:

01-12-2018 | Breast

Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors: S. Mall, J. Noakes, M. Kossoff, W. Lee, M. McKessar, A. Goy, J. Duncombe, M. Roberts, B. Giuffre, A. Miller, N. Bhola, C. Kapoor, C. Shearman, G. DaCosta, S. Choi, J. Sterba, M. Kay, K. Bruderlin, N. Winarta, K. Donohue, B. Macdonell-Scott, F. Klijnsma, K. Suzuki, P. Brennan, C. Mello-Thoms

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with standard digital mammography (DM) workup views in the breast cancer assessment clinic.

Materials and methods

The Tomosynthesis Assessment Clinic trial (TACT), conducted between 16 October 2014 and 19 April 2016, is an ethics-approved, monocenter, multireader, multicase split-plot reading study. After written informed consent was obtained, 144 females (age > 40 years) who were recalled to the assessment clinic were recruited into TACT. These cases (48 cancers) were randomly allocated for blinded review of (1) DM workup and (2) DBT, both in conjunction with previous DM from the screening examination. Fifteen radiologists of varying experience levels in the Australia BreastScreen Program were included in this study, wherein each radiologist read 48 cases (16 cancers) in 3 non-overlapping blocks. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine radiologists’ performances.

Results

Use of DBT (AUC = 0.927) led to improved performance of the radiologists (z = 2.62, p = 0.008) compared with mammography workup (AUC = 0.872). Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DBT (0.93, 0.75, 0.64, 0.96) were higher than those of the workup (0.90, 0.56, 0.49, 0.92). Most radiologists (80%) performed better with DBT than standard workup. Cancerous lesions on DBT appeared more severe (U = 33,172, p = 0.02) and conspicuous (U = 24,207, p = 0.02). There was a significant reduction in the need for additional views (χ² = 17.63, p < 0.001) and recommendations for ultrasound (χ² = 8.56, p = 0.003) with DBT.

Conclusions

DBT has the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy and simplify the assessment process in the breast cancer assessment clinic.

Key Points

• Use of DBT in the assessment clinic results in increased diagnostic accuracy.

• Use of DBT in the assessment clinic improves performance of radiologists and also increases the confidence in their decisions.

• DBT may reduce the need for additional views, ultrasound imaging, and biopsy.

Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(2):586–591. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.08.2031 CrossRef

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70134-7 CrossRef

Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266(1):104–113. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674 CrossRef

Kopans DB (2007) Breast Imaging. 3rd ed: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Mall S, Lewis S, Brennan P, Noakes J, Mello-Thoms C (2017) The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review. J Med Radiat Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.230 CrossRef

Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ (2016) Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol 89(1062):8. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150743 CrossRef

Seo M, Chang JM, Kim SA et al (2016) Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer 19(4):438–446. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.438 CrossRef

Alakhras M, Mello-Thoms C, Rickard M, Bourne R, Brennan PC editors (2014) Efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. Proc SPIE 9037, Medical Imaging 2014: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 90370V (March 11, 2014)

FDA Radiological Devices Panel Meeting, October 24, 2012, PMA application. FDA; 2012. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM324861.pdf

10.

Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307(13):1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.388 CrossRef

11.

Lockie D, Nickson C, Aitken Z (2014) Evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in an Australian BreastScreen assessment service (an abstract). J Med Radiat Sci 61:63–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.71 CrossRef

12.

Whelehan P, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72(1). doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011CrossRef

13.

Cornford EJ, Turnbull AE, James JJ et al (2016) Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions. Br J Radiol 89(1058):20150735. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150735 CrossRef

14.

Morel JC, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2014) The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. Clin Radiol 69(11):1112–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.06.005 CrossRef

15.

Mall S, Brennan PC, Mello-Thoms C (2015) Implementation and value of using a split-plot reader design in a study of digital breast tomosynthesis in a breast cancer assessment clinic. In: SPIE 9416, Medical Imaging 2015: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 941619, 17 March 2015. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2083152

16.

Obuchowski NA, Gallas BD, Hillis SL (2012) Multi-reader ROC studies with split-plot designs: a comparison of statistical methods. Acad Radiol 19(12):1508–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Gallas BD, Bandos A, Samuelson FW, Wagner RF (2009) A framework for random-effects ROC analysis: biases with the bootstrap and other variance estimators. Comm Stat Theory Methods 38(15):2586–2603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920802610084 CrossRef

18.

Gallas BD (2013) iMRMC v3p1: Application for Analyzing and Sizing MRMC Reader Studies: Division of Imaging and Applied Mathematics, CDRH, FDA, Silver Spring, MD. Available from: https://github.com/DIDSR/iMRMC

19.

Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(2):W172–W1W6. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.09.3244 CrossRef

20.

Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283(2):371–380. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017151936 CrossRef

21.

Heywang-Kobrunner S, Jaensch A, Hacker A, Wulz-Horber S, Mertelmeier T, Holzel D (2017) Value of digital breast tomosynthesis versus additional views for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities—a first analysis. Breast Care 12(2):92–97. https://doi.org/10.1159/000456649 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 262(1):61–68. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101763 CrossRef

23.

Mhuircheartaigh NN, Coffey L, Fleming H, Doherty A, McNally S (2017) With the advent of tomosynthesis in the workup of mammographic abnormality, is spot compression mammography now obsolete? An initial clinical experience. Breast J 23(5):509–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12787 CrossRef

24.

Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139(1-3):113–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq044 CrossRef

25.

Clark G, Valencia A (2015) Does tomosynthesis increase confidence in grading the suspicious appearance of a lesion? An audit of cancers diagnosed in the assessment clinic using tomosynthesis: initial experience at Avon Breast Screening Unit. Breast Cancer Res 17:2CrossRef

26.

Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS et al (2014) Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med 174(6):954–961. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981 CrossRef

27.

Hafslund B, Nortvedt MW (2009) Mammography screening from the perspective of quality of life: a review of the literature. Scand J Caring Sci 23(3):539–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00634.x CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bansal GJ, Young P (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings. Br J Radiol 88(1053):20140855. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140855 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Philpotts L, Kalra, V, Crenshaw, J, Butler, R (2013) How tomosynthesis optimizes patient work up, throughput, and resource utilization. Radiological Society of North America 2013 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; December 1 - December 6; Chicago

Title: Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?
Authors: S. Mall
J. Noakes
M. Kossoff
W. Lee
M. McKessar
A. Goy
J. Duncombe
M. Roberts
B. Giuffre
A. Miller
N. Bhola
C. Kapoor
C. Shearman
G. DaCosta
S. Choi
J. Sterba
M. Kay
K. Bruderlin
N. Winarta
K. Donohue
B. Macdonell-Scott
F. Klijnsma
K. Suzuki
P. Brennan
C. Mello-Thoms
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5473-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2018

National survey on dose data analysis in computed tomography

Subjective and objective comparisons of image quality between ultra-high-resolution CT and conventional area detector CT in phantoms and cadaveric human lungs

Dual-energy CT (DECT) lung perfusion in pulmonary hypertension: concordance rate with V/Q scintigraphy in diagnosing chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH)

Response to Letter to the Editor on ‘Piriformis muscle syndrome: A cross-sectional imaging study in 116 patients and evaluation of therapeutic outcome’

Sub-millisievert CT colonography: effect of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction on the detection of colonic polyps

CT evaluation of response in advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with long-acting-repeatable octreotide: what is the optimal size variation threshold?