Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Research Articles

Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?

To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation. This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated. The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P =.92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9cm, 8.0-9.9cm, >10.0cm (all P <.001). The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

Performance Metrics of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Based on Years Since a Prior Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND. Mammography surveillance protocols after breast cancer treatment vary widely. Some practices recommend performing diagnostic mammography for a certain number of years or indefinitely, whereas others recommend returning immediately to screening. OBJECTIVE. This study's objective was to determine performance metrics of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients who resume screening mammography immediately after breast cancer treatment, based on the number of years since the breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS. This retrospective study included screening DBT examinations performed from January 2013 to June 2019 in patients who resumed screening mammography immediately after a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between screening performance metrics and years since the prior breast cancer diagnosis, controlling for age, race and ethnicity, breast density, presence of a prior screening mammogram, and interpreting radiologist. RESULTS. The study included 8090 patients (mean age, 65 ± 11 [SD] years) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis who underwent 30,812 screening DBT examinations during the study period. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 8.6 per 1000 examinations (265/30,812), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 5.7% (1750/30,812), PPV1 was 15.1% (265/1750), sensitivity was 80.3% (265/330), specificity was 95.1% (28,997/30,482), and false-negative rate was 2.1 per 1000 examinations (65/30,812). CDR showed a significant independent positive association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p < .001), being lowest more than 2 to up to 3 years after diagnosis (4.9 per 1000 examinations) and highest more than 8 to up to 9 years after diagnosis (11.2 per 1000 examinations). AIR showed a significant independent negative association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; p = .01), being highest 1 year or less after diagnosis (7.5%) and lowest more than 5 to up to 6 years after diagnosis (5.0%). CONCLUSION. Among 8090 patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis, even though the AIR was higher during the year after diagnosis compared with subsequent years, the AIR remained acceptably low (< 10%) in all years. CLINICAL IMPACT. These results support the study institution's mammographic surveillance protocol for patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis of returning immediately to DBT screening.

Radial Scars on Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Upstaging Rates and Management Strategies.

Background: Radial scars are more commonly identified on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) than on digital mammography (DM). Nonetheless, universal guidelines for radial scar management in the current era of DBT are lacking. Objective: To determine the upstaging rates of screening DBT-detected radial scars with and without atypia and to identify features related to upstaging risk. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent core-needle biopsy (CNB) showing a radial scar after screening DBT and DM from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. Patients without surgical excision or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up after CNB were excluded. Rates of upstaging to breast cancer [ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive disease] were compared between radial scars with and without atypia at CNB. Associations of upstaging with patient, imaging, and pathologic variables were explored using standard statistical tests. Results: Of 165 women with 171 radial scars, the final study sample included 153 women (mean age, 56 years; range, 33-83 years) with 159 radial scars that underwent surgical excision (80.5%, 128/159) or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up (19.5%, 31/159). Seven radial scars were upstaged to DCIS and one to invasive disease. Therefore, the upstaging rate of radial scars to cancer was 5.0% (8/159). The upstaging rate of radial scars without atypia at CNB was 1.6% (2/129) and of radial scars with atypia was 20.0% (6/30) (p<.001). On multivariable analysis, features associated with higher upstaging risk included a prior breast cancer diagnosis (62.5% vs 4.8%, p=.01) and the presence of atypia at CNB (75.0% vs 15.9%, p=.02). The upstaging rate according to mammographic finding type was 7.1% (1/14) for asymmetries, 6.7% (1/15) for masses, 6.3% (6/96) for architectural distortion, and 0.0% (0/34) for calcifications. Conclusion: Screening-detected radial scars without atypia at CNB have a low upstaging rate to breast cancer of 1.6%. Clinical Impact: Imaging surveillance rather than surgery is a reasonable approach for radial scars without atypia, particularly for those presenting as calcifications.

3D tomosynthesis evaluation of breast parenchymal density and its association with malignant lesions and menopausal status

BackgroundBreast cancer that has a high mortality rate is now known to decrease due to early detection with the advent of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT or 3D tomosynthesis) screening, especially in those with dense breasts. The risk of breast cancer related to 'changes' in breast density over time remains controversial as breast density and age have an inverse relationship. Breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer is known, but its association with menopausal status, if any, has not been studied thoroughly. MethodAll patients referred for 3D mammography with breast lesions from June 2022 to January 2023 were considered. Patients were categorized as pre-, peri, and post-menopausal, and each category was further sub-classified based on the breast density as either dense or non-dense and the lesion type, whether benign or malignant. The Statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square test to evaluate whether any association exists between malignancy and menopausal status. ResultA total of 60 patients, with 20 in each category of menopausal stage, were imaged and evaluated. 35% of women had non-dense breasts, while 65% had dense breast parenchyma. Breast density and lesion type were associated significantly (p-value = 0.05) where, out of the 23 benign lesions, 48% occurred in dense women, and 52% in non-dense women respectively. In our study, both benign (N = 7) and malignant (N = 13) lesions occurred in equal numbers in the pre-and peri‑ menopausal women, whereas the number of benign and malignant lesions in the post-menopausal women were 9 (45%) and 11 (55%), respectively. Even though no statistically significant association was found between menopausal status and malignancy in our study, out of the 37 malignant lesions, a majority (76%) of lesions occurred in those having dense breasts (N = 28). ConclusionEarlier, the notion was that older women had a higher risk of breast cancer compared to younger, but this study has shown that malignancy and menopausal status have a p-value of 0.754, which is not statistically significant. However, both malignant and benign lesions were found more in women having high breast density, in keeping with previous literature. Hence, precaution and care should be taken during pre-, peri, and post-menopausal phases, especially in those patients with high breast density. Apart from breast density, many other risk factors for breast cancer exist, therefore breast density alone is not sufficient to govern the need for screening in women.

Radiation doses received in the UK breast screening programmes 2019-2023.

To report the latest UK mammography dose survey results and to compare radiation doses from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in UK breast screening. Anonymized exposure factors were collected for 111 152 screening cases and 5113 assessment cases from 405 x-ray sets across the United Kingdom using an online submission system linked to a national database of mammography quality control data. Output and beam quality measurements from each set were combined with exposure data to estimate mean glandular doses (MGD). FFDM doses increased by ∼10% compared to the 2016-2019 national survey but compressed breast thicknesses (CBT) remained similar. DBT doses were 34%-40% higher than FFDM overall and 34% higher than FFDM for breasts 50-60mm thick. We found a possible overestimation of PMMA breast equivalent thicknesses at low CBTs, but the evidence was not conclusive. Recent changes to the mix of x-ray models in use in UK breast screening have resulted in higher FFDM breast doses. DBT doses in the NHSBSP are on average higher than FFDM by ∼34%-40%. This is the first national study to report DBT and FFDM MGDs in UK breast screening.

Impact of pre-operative MRI on surgical management of screening digital breast tomosynthesis-detected invasive lobular carcinoma.

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of pre-operative MRI on surgical management of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-detected invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). A retrospective medical record analysis was conducted of women with screening DBT-detected ILC and subsequent surgery from 2017-2021. Clinical, imaging, and pathological features were compared between women who did and did not undergo MRI, and between women with and without additional disease detected on MRI, using the Pearson's chi-squared test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Concordance between imaging and surgical pathology sizes was also evaluated. Of 125 women (mean age 67years, range 44-90) with screening-detected ILC, MRI was obtained in 62 women (49.6%) with a mean age of 63years (range 45-80). Compared to women without MRI, women who had MRI examinations were younger, more likely to have dense breast tissue, and more likely to undergo mastectomy initially rather than lumpectomy (p < 0.001-0.01). Eighteen biopsies were performed based on MRI findings, of which 55.6% (10/18) were malignant. Conventional imaging more frequently underestimated ILC span at the biopsy site than MRI, using a 25% threshold difference (17.5% [7/40] versus58.5% [24/41], p < 0.001). MRI detected more extensive disease at the biopsy site in six patients (9.7%, 6/62), additional ipsilateral disease in six patients (9.7%, 6/62), and contralateral disease in one patient (1.6%, 1/62). MRI therefore impacted surgical management in 21.0% (13/62) of patients. MRI led to the detection of additional disease, thus impacting surgical management, in one-fifth of patients with ILC.

Eye radiation dose from breast cancer screening using full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study

IntroductionThe eye lens is recently classified as one of the most radiosensitive tissues by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and it has been suggested that the eye lens receives radiation dose during mammography due to scatter radiation. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiation dose received by the lens of the clients’ eye from Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. MethodsThe eye radiation dose received by ATOM dosimetry phantom was estimated with thermo-luminescent dosemeters (TLDs). One TLD was utilised for each eye. A breast phantom was exposed for four-view screening mammography using 16 FFDM machines and one DBT machine. The breast phantom was exposed three times for each mammographic position and an average TLD dose reading was considered to minimise random error. ResultsFor four-view FFDM screening, the phantom eye radiation dose ranges from 0.013 mGy to 0.029 mGy with a mean±sd of 0.019 ± 0.005 mGy. A higher eye radiation dose of 0.041 mGy was recorded from four-view DBT screening. The statistical analysis demonstrated that the eye lens radiation dose is strongly and significantly correlated to breast organ dose and X-ray tube voltage. ConclusionThe phantom eye lens was exposed to scatter radiation from FFDM and DBT screening. The measured dose via the four-view DBT screening was higher than the four-view FFDM screening, but sits below the internationally acceptable ranges. If the findings of our paper hold true in practice, then the risk to the lens of the eyes for women attending breast screening is acceptable. Implications for practiceThe new lens radiation dose levels recommended by the ICRP necessitate the reevaluation of eye radiation dose from different radiographic examinations, especially those used for screening purpose where healthy individuals involved.

Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.

To analyze discordant and false-negatives of double reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) including reading times in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST), and reclassify these in a retrospective reader study as missed, minimal sign, or true-negatives. The prospective OTST comparing double reading DBT vs. DM had paired design with four parallel arms: DM, DM + computer aided detection, DBT + DM, and DBT + synthetic mammography. Eight radiologists interpreted images in batches using a 5-point scale. Reading time was automatically recorded. A retrospective reader study including four radiologists classified screen-detected cancers with at least one false-negative score and screening examinations of interval cancers as negative, non-specific minimal sign, significant minimal sign, and missed; the two latter groups are defined "actionable." Statistics included chi-square, Fisher's exact, McNemar's, and Mann-Whitney U tests. Discordant rate (cancer missed by one reader) for screen-detected cancers was overall comparable (DBT (31% [71/227]) and DM (30% [52/175]), p= .81), significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers (DBT, 19% [20/106] vs. DM, 36% [38/106], p= .003), but high (28/49 = 57%, p= 0.001) for DBT-only detected spiculated cancers. Reading time and sensitivity varied among readers. False-negative DBT-only detected spiculated cancers had shorter reading time than true-negatives in 46% (13/28). Retrospective evaluation classified the following DBT exams "actionable": three missed by both readers, 95% (39/41) of discordant cancers detected by both modes, all 30 discordant DBT-only cancers, 25% (13/51) of interval cancers. Discordant rate was overall comparable for DBT and DM, significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers, but high for DBT-only detected spiculated lesions. Most false-negative screen-detected DBT were classified as "actionable." Retrospective evaluation of false-negative interpretations from the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial shows that most discordant and several interval cancers could have been detected at screening. This underlines the potential for modern AI-based reading aids and triage, as high-volume screening is a demanding task. • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is more sensitive and has higher specificity compared to digital mammography screening, but high-volume DBT screening is a demanding task which can result in high discordance rate among readers. • Independent double reading DBT screening had overall comparable discordance rate as digital mammography, lower for spiculated masses seen on both modalities, and higher for small spiculated cancer seen only on DBT. • Almost all discordant digital breast tomosynthesis-detected cancers (72 of 74) and 25% (13 of 51) of the interval cancers in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were retrospectively classified as actionable and could have been detected by the readers.

Management of screening-detected lobular neoplasia in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: A preliminary study

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine upgrade rates of lobular neoplasia detected by screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to determine imaging and clinicopathological features that may influence risk of upgrade. MethodsMedical records were reviewed of consecutive women who presented with screening DBT-detected atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and/or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2020. Included patients underwent needle biopsy and had surgery or at least two-year imaging follow-up. Imaging and clinicopathological features were compared between upgraded and nonupgraded cases of lobular neoplasia using the Pearson's chi-squared test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. ResultsDuring the study period, 107 women (mean age 55 years, range 40–88 years) with 110 cases of ALH and/or LCIS underwent surgery (80.9%, n = 89) or at least two-year imaging follow-up (19.1%, n = 21). The overall upgrade rate to cancer was 5.5% (6/110), and the upgrade rate to invasive cancer was 3.6% (4/110). The upgrade rate of ALH to cancer was 4.1% (3/74), whereas the upgrade rate of LCIS to cancer was 9.4% (3/32) (p = .28). The upgrade rate of cases presenting as calcifications was 4.2% (3/71), whereas the upgrade rates of cases presenting as noncalcified findings was 7.7% (3/39) (p = .44). ConclusionsThe upgrade rate of screening DBT-detected lobular neoplasia is less than 6%. Surveillance rather than surgery can be considered for lobular neoplasia, particularly in patients with ALH and in those with screening-detected calcifications leading to the diagnosis.

Feasibility of predicting a screening digital breast tomosynthesis recall using features extracted from the electronic medical record

PurposeTools to predict a screening mammogram recall at the time of scheduling could improve patient care. We extracted patient demographic and breast care history information within the electronic medical record (EMR) for women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to identify which factors were associated with a screening recall recommendation. MethodIn 2018, 21,543 women aged 40 years or greater who underwent screening DBT at our institution were identified. Demographic information and breast care factors were extracted automatically from the EMR. The primary outcome was a screening recall recommendation of BI-RADS 0. A multivariable logistic regression model was built and included age, race, ethnicity groups, family breast cancer history, personal breast cancer history, surgical breast cancer history, recall history, and days since last available screening mammogram. ResultsMultiple factors were associated with a recall on the multivariable model: history of breast cancer surgery (OR: 2.298, 95% CI: 1.854, 2.836); prior recall within the last five years (vs no prior, OR: 0.768, 95% CI: 0.687, 0.858); prior screening mammogram within 0–18 months (vs no prior, OR: 0.601, 95% CI: 0.520, 0.691), prior screening mammogram within 18–30 months (vs no prior, OR: 0.676, 95% CI: 0.520, 0.691); and age (normalized OR: 0.723, 95% CI: 0.690, 0.758). ConclusionsIt is feasible to predict a DBT screening recall recommendation using patient demographics and breast care factors that can be extracted automatically from the EMR.

FUZZY WEIGHTED MEDIAN FILTER WITH UNSHARP MASKING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF DBT IMAGES IN BREAST CANCER DETECTION

Breast cancer survival rates can be increased by providing early treatment to patients; thereby, microcalcification detection is critical because microcalcifications are an early sign of breast cancer. The visibility of microcalcifications can be improved by using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) images, which have been shown to improve the overlapping issue in mammograms. However, since DBT screening techniques generate blurry artefacts and noise, this study proposes a DBT image enhancement procedure. As a result, this study indicated an enhancement method based on Non-Linear Unsharp Masking filters (NLUM). A filter, such as the Median Filter in conventional NLUM, is required to complete the non-linear element in the algorithm. Other researchers have previously proposed and demonstrated the Fuzzy Weighted Median Filter (FWMF) to improve medical images; thus, these filters can be adapted to the NLUM and replaced with the conventional filter. Following that, the enhancement process's performance will be evaluated using Mean Square Error (MSE) and Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR). When compared to the Median Filter, the results show that the FWMF is the best filter to use in NLUM and successfully enhances DBT images with MSE and PSNR averages of 0.0171 and 67.0574, respectively.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Personalized breast cancer screening with selective addition of digital breast tomosynthesis through artificial intelligence.

Breast cancer screening is predominantly performed using digital mammography (DM), but digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has higher sensitivity. DBT demands more resources than DM, and it might be more feasible to reserve DBT for women with a clear benefit from the technique. We explore if artificial intelligence (AI) can select women who would benefit from DBT imaging. We used data from Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, where all women prospectively were examined with separately double read DM and DBT. We retrospectively analyzed DM examinations () with a breast cancer detection system and used the provided risk score (1 to 10) for risk stratification. We tested how different score thresholds for adding DBT to an initial DM affects the number of detected cancers, additional DBT examinations needed, detection rate, and false positives. If using a threshold of 9.0, 25 (26%) more cancers would be detected compared to using DM alone. Of the 41 cancers only detected on DBT, 61% would be detected, with only 1797 (12%) of the women examined with both DM and DBT. The detection rate for the added DBT would be 14/1000 women, whereas the false-positive recalls would be increased with 58 (21%). Using DBT only for selected high gain cases could be an alternative to complete DBT screening. AI can analyze initial DM images to identify high gain cases where DBT can be added during the same visit. There might be logistical challenges, and further studies in a prospective setting are necessary.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

ObjectivesTo evaluate the total number of false-positive recalls, including radiographic appearances and false-positive biopsies, in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST).MethodsThe prospective, population-based MBTST, with 14,848 participating women, was designed to compare one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to two-view digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. False-positive recall rates, radiographic appearances, and biopsy rates were analyzed. Comparisons were made between DBT, DM, and DBT + DM, both in total and in trial year 1 compared to trial years 2 to 5, with numbers, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsThe false-positive recall rate was higher with DBT, 1.6% (95% CI 1.4; 1.8), compared to screening with DM, 0.8% (95% CI 0.7; 1.0). The proportion of the radiographic appearance of stellate distortion was 37.3% (91/244) with DBT, compared to 24.0% (29/121) with DM. The false-positive recall rate with DBT during trial year 1 was 2.6% (95% CI 1.8; 3.5), then stabilized at 1.5% (95% CI 1.3; 1.8) during trial years 2 to 5. The percentage of stellate distortion with DBT was 50% (19/38) trial year 1 compared to 35.0% (72/206) trial years 2 to 5.ConclusionsThe higher false-positive recall rate with DBT compared to DM was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings. The proportion of these findings, as well as the DBT false-positive recall rate, was reduced after the first trial year.Clinical relevance statementAssessment of false-positive recalls gives information on potential benefits and side effects in DBT screening.Key Points• The false-positive recall rate in a prospective digital breast tomosynthesis screening trial was higher compared to digital mammography, but still low compared to other trials.• The higher false-positive recall rate with digital breast tomosynthesis was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings; the proportion of these findings was reduced after the first trial year.

National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening: A Preliminary Real-world Experience.

The purpose of this study is to assess the "real-world" impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to detect breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening exams following 12 months of utilization in a subspecialized academic breast center. Following IRB approval, mammography audit reports, as specified in the BI-RADS atlas, were retrospectively generated for five radiologists reading at three locations during a 12-month time frame. One location had the AI tool (iCAD ProFound AI v2.0), and the other two locations did not. The co-primary endpoints were cancer detection rate (CDR) and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer among screenings with abnormal interpretations (PPV1) and for biopsies performed (PPV3). Odds ratios (OR) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) summarized the impact of AI across radiologists using generalized estimating equations. Nonsignificant differences were observed in CDR, AIR, and PPVs. The CDR was 7.3 with AI and 5.9 without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9-1.7). The AIR was 11.7% with AI and 11.8% without AI (OR 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8-1.3). The PPV1 was 6.2% with AI and 5.0% without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.97-1.7). The PPV3 was 33.3% with AI and 32.0% without AI (OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8-1.5). Although we are unable to show statistically significant changes in CDR and AIR outcomes in the two groups, the results are consistent with prior reader studies. There is a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in CDR with AI, without significant increases in AIR.

Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings.

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Abstract PD16-02: Factors Associated with Receipt of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

Abstract Introduction: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasingly utilized in breast cancer screening, including among women at high risk for breast cancer. While there is a lack of rigorous data from randomized controlled trials demonstrating superior efficacy compared to two-dimensional (2D) digital mammography, observational studies suggest that DBT might have lower rates of false-positive results and increased detection of invasive cancer than 2D mammography. However, uptake of DBT might be lower among racial/ethnic minorities, which could contribute to breast cancer disparities. We evaluated whether sociodemographic and breast cancer risk factors were associated with receipt of DBT vs. 2D mammography among a racially/ethnically diverse population of women undergoing screening mammography. Methods: We conducted a respective cohort study among women, age 40-74 years, who underwent screening mammography at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) in New York, NY, from February 2020 to January 2022. We extracted data from the electronic health record (EHR) on age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer (yes/no), prior breast biopsies (yes/no), and mammographic breast density (high vs. low), and calculated individual 5-year risks of invasive breast cancer according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk 1.67%. Our primary outcome was receipt of at least one DBT screening examination from 2020-2022 (yes/no). We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess the association between demographic/clinical factors and receipt of DBT. Results: Among 5617 evaluable women, mean age was 55.4 years (SD, 9.5 years) and 56% identified as non-Hispanic White, 10% as non-Hispanic Black, 17% as Hispanic, 8% as Asian, and 9% other/unknown. Over 60% of women had high breast density, and 34% met high-risk criteria. Seventy percent of women had at least one DBT from 2020-2022. In multivariable analyses (Table 1), women with high vs. low breast density were 2.5 times more likely to receive DBT (odds ratio [OR]=2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.19-2.88), while first-degree family history of breast cancer, prior breast biopsy, and age were inversely associated with DBT. Racial/ethnic minorities were less than half as likely to undergo DBT compared to non-Hispanic Whites; for example, Hispanic women were over 85% less likely to receive DBT (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.11-0.16). Overall, there was no association between breast cancer risk status (high vs. low/average) and receipt of DBT (OR=1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.08). Conclusion: We observed that the majority of women undergoing screening mammography at CUIMC from 2020-2022 received DBT for breast cancer screening. However, racial/ethnic minorities, including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have received DBT. Breast cancer risk according the BCSC model was also not associated with receipt of DBT. Future studies should determine which subsets of women are more likely to benefit from DBT. Citation Format: Julia E. McGuinness, Gargi Patel, Jacquelyn N. Amenta, Rita Kukafka, Katherine D. Crew. Factors Associated with Receipt of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women Undergoing Screening Mammography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD16-02.

Measuring reader fatigue in the interpretation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

The interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening examinations is a complex task for an already overstretched workforce which has the potential to increase pressure on readers leading to fatigue and patient safety issues. Studies in non-medical and medical settings have suggested that changes in blink characteristics can reflect fatigue. The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of blink characteristics as an objective marker of fatigue in readers interpreting DBT breast screening examinations. Twenty-six DBT readers involved in the UK PROSPECTS trial interpreted a test set of 40 DBT cases while being observed by an eye tracking device from November 2019 to February 2021. Raw data from the eye tracker were collected and automated processing software was used to produce eye blinking characteristics data which were analysed using multiple linear regression statistical models. Of the 26 DBT readers recruited, eye tracking data from 23 participants were analysed due to missing data rendering 3 participants' data uninterpretable. The mean reading time per DBT case was 2.81 min. There was a statistically significant increase in blinking duration of 0.38 ms/case as the reading session progressed (p < 0.0001). This was the result of a significant decrease in the number of ultra-short blinks lasting ≤50 ms (p = 0.0005) and a significant increase in longer blinks lasting 51-100 ms (p = 0.008). Changes in blinking characteristics could serve as objective measures of reader fatigue and may prove useful in the development of DBT reading protocols. Blink characteristics can be used as an objective measure of fatigue; however there is limited evidence of their use in radiological settings. Our study suggests that changes in blink duration and frequency could be used to monitor fatigue in DBT reading sessions.