Full-field Digital Mammography Screening Research Articles

Association between fat-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes on screening mammography and cardiometabolic disease.

Ectopic fat deposition within and around organs is a stronger predictor of cardiometabolic disease status than body mass index (BMI). Fat deposition within the lymphatic system is poorly understood. This study examined the association between the prevalence of cardiometabolic disease and ectopic fat deposition within axillary lymph nodes (LNs) visualized on screening mammograms. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 834 women presenting for full-field digital screening mammography. The status of fat-infiltrated LNs was assessed based on the size and morphology of axillary LNs from screening mammograms. The prevalence of cardiometabolic disease was retrieved from the electronic medical records, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia, high blood glucose, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Fat-infiltrated axillary LNs were associated with a high prevalence of T2DM among all women (adjusted odds ratio: 3.92, 95% CI: [2.40, 6.60], p-value < 0.001) and in subgroups of women with and without obesity. Utilizing the status of fatty LNs improved the classification of T2DM status in addition to age and BMI (1.4% improvement in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). Fat-infiltrated axillary LNs visualized on screening mammograms were associated with the prevalence of T2DM. If further validated, fat-infiltrated axillary LNs may represent a novel imaging biomarker of T2DM in women undergoing screening mammography.

Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance

ObjectivesTo evaluate if artificial intelligence (AI) can discriminate recalled benign from recalled malignant mammographic screening abnormalities to improve screening performance.MethodsA total of 2257 full-field digital mammography screening examinations, obtained 2011–2013, of women aged 50–69 years which were recalled for further assessment of 295 malignant out of 305 truly malignant lesions and 2289 benign lesions after independent double-reading with arbitration, were included in this retrospective study. A deep learning AI system was used to obtain a score (0–95) for each recalled lesion, representing the likelihood of breast cancer. The sensitivity on the lesion level and the proportion of women without false-positive ratings (non-FPR) resulting under AI were estimated as a function of the classification cutoff and compared to that of human readers.ResultsUsing a cutoff of 1, AI decreased the proportion of women with false-positives from 89.9 to 62.0%, non-FPR 11.1% vs. 38.0% (difference 26.9%, 95% confidence interval 25.1–28.8%; p < .001), preventing 30.1% of reader-induced false-positive recalls, while reducing sensitivity from 96.7 to 91.1% (5.6%, 3.1–8.0%) as compared to human reading. The positive predictive value of recall (PPV-1) increased from 12.8 to 16.5% (3.7%, 3.5–4.0%). In women with mass-related lesions (n = 900), the non-FPR was 14.2% for humans vs. 36.7% for AI (22.4%, 19.8–25.3%) at a sensitivity of 98.5% vs. 97.1% (1.5%, 0–3.5%).ConclusionThe application of AI during consensus conference might especially help readers to reduce false-positive recalls of masses at the expense of a small sensitivity reduction. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the screening benefit of AI in practice.Key Points• Integrating the use of artificial intelligence in the arbitration process reduces benign recalls and increases the positive predictive value of recall at the expense of some sensitivity loss.• Application of the artificial intelligence system to aid the decision to recall a woman seems particularly beneficial for masses, where the system reaches comparable sensitivity to that of the readers, but with considerably reduced false-positives.• About one-fourth of all recalled malignant lesions are not automatically marked by the system such that their evaluation (AI score) must be retrieved manually by the reader. A thorough reading of screening mammograms by readers to identify suspicious lesions therefore remains mandatory.

Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography

ObjectiveTo compare lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. Materials and methodsSeven breast imagers each prospectively evaluated 107–228 screening mammograms (FFDM, DBT, and SM; total 1206 examinations) over 12 weeks in sets of 10–50 consecutive examinations. Interpretation sessions alternated as follows: SM + DBT, then FFDM, or FFDM + DBT, then SM. Lesion conspicuity on SM versus FFDM (equal/better versus less) was assessed using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. DBT-only findings were excluded. ResultsOverall 1082 of 1206 (89.7%) examinations were assessed BI-RADS 1/2, and 124 of 1206 (10.3%) assessed BI-RADS 0. There were 409 evaluated findings, including 134 masses, 119 calcifications, 72 asymmetries, 49 architectural distortion, and 35 focal asymmetries. SM conspicuity compared to FFDM conspicuity for lesions was rated 1) masses: 77 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, 57 (43%) less conspicuous; 2) asymmetries/focal asymmetries: 61 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, and 46 (43%) less conspicuous; 3) architectural distortion: 46 (94%) equal or more conspicuous, 3 (6%) less conspicuous; 4) calcifications: 115 (97%) equal or more conspicuous, 4 (3%) less conspicuous. SM had better conspicuity than FFDM for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries. ConclusionCompared to FFDM, SM has better conspicuity for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.

Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Compare diagnostic performance of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM), a hybrid FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) environment, and DBT only. This institutional review board-approved, retrospective study consisted of all patients undergoing screening mammography at an urban academic medical center and outpatient imaging facility between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We used the electronic health record data warehouse to extract report data and patient demographics. A validated natural language processing algorithm extracted BI-RADS score from each report. An institutional cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Primary outcomes of recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) were calculated for three periods: FFDM-only environment, hybrid environment, and DBT-only environment. A χ2 test was used to compare recall rate, CDR, and PPV1. A total of 179,028 screening mammograms comprised the study cohort: 41,818 (23.3%) during the FFDM-only period, 83,125 (46.4%) during the hybrid period, and 54,084 (30.2%) during the DBT-only period. Recall rates were 10.4% (4,279 of 41,280) for the FFDM-only period, 10.6% (8,761 of 82,917) for the hybrid period, and 10.8% (5,850 of 54,020) for the DBT-only period (P= .96). CDR (cancers per 1,000 examinations) was 2.6 per 1,000, 4.9 per 1,000, and 6.0 per 1,000 for FFDM only, hybrid, and DBT only, respectively (P < .01). PPV1s (number of cancers per number of recalls) were 2.5% for the FFDM-only period, 4.6% for the hybrid period, and 5.6% for the DBT-only period (P < .01). Recall rates were not significantly different within the three periods in the breast imaging practice. However, PPV1 and CDR were significantly higher with DBT only.

Impact of Contralateral Breast Shielding on the Risk of Developing Radiation-induced Cancer from Full-field Digital Mammography Screening

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the impact of contralateral breast shielding on the risk of developing radiation-induced cancer from four-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM) screening. MethodsA poly methyl methacrylate-polyethylene breast phantom and adult ATOM dosimetry phantom were used to measure organ dose on four FFDM machines using craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections for each breast. A lead rubber shield of 0.25 mm equivalent lead thickness was used to protect the contralateral breast. Organs dose, effective dose, and effective risk were calculated. For effective risk estimations, the impact of the shield was considered for the routine screening views. ResultsThe contralateral breast dose was reduced by more than 95%. For each FFDM machine, contralateral breast dose reduction in μGy were 35.20 reduced to 1.93, 41.40 reduced to 0.01, 22.85 reduced to 1.24, and 22.76 reduced to 1.66. Effective risk reduction was significant (P < .05). For all FFDM machines, a small reduction was identified in sternum bone marrow dose due to the use of contralateral breast shield. ConclusionsThe results of the study demonstrate the value of a contralateral breast shield. More research is required to determine whether such a shield has clinical utility.

Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period (n = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. CONCLUSION. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.

The Potential Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on the Benign Biopsy Rate in Women Recalled within the UK Breast Screening Programme.

Background Multiple studies showed digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a higher cancer detection rate and a lower recall rate than full-field digital mammography (FFDM). However, there is a paucity of studies on whether the benign biopsy rate will be lower with DBT. Purpose To evaluate the benign biopsy rate of DBT versus that of FFDM in women recalled after breast screening within the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Materials and Methods This prospective single institution study included women who underwent screening FFDM or screening breast MRI between November 13, 2015, and July 29, 2016, and were recalled. Women who were recalled underwent a breast examination, additional imaging (mammography, US), and biopsy, if required. The number of interventions and the outcome of assessment were recorded. FFDM was performed at the screening appointment, and DBT images were acquired when participants attended a screening assessment within 3 weeks after screening FFDM. Two of four readers blinded to biopsy results analyzed DBT images in isolation and then in conjunction with FFDM images and any additional two-dimensional mammographic or US images. Two-tailed McNemar tests were used to test differences in sensitivity and specificity of the two conditions at 5% significance level. Results During the study period, 30 933 women underwent FFDM. A total of 1470 women were recalled (recall rate, 4.8%), and 827 were included after exclusion criteria were applied. Their mean age was 56.7 years ± 7.7 (standard deviation). A total of 145 breast cancers were detected (142 with FFDM, two with DBT only, one with surveillance MRI). Triple assessment without DBT resulted in 571 breast biopsies and enabled detection of 142 cancers. The addition of DBT would have resulted in 298 biopsies and detection of 142 cancers, reducing the number of biopsies from 571 of 827 (69.0%) to 298 of 827 (36.0%). Conclusion When compared with full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis can reduce the benign biopsy rate while maintaining the cancer detection rate. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of double reading automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) when added to full field digital mammography (FFDM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening. MethodsFrom April 2014 to June 2015, 124 women with dense breasts and intermediate to high breast cancer risk were recruited for screening with FFDM, DBT, and ABUS. Readers used FFDM and DBT in clinical practice and received ABUS training prior to study initiation. FFDM or DBT were first interpreted alone by two independent readers and then with ABUS. All recalled women underwent diagnostic workup with at least one year of follow-up. Recall rates were compared using the sign test; differences in outcomes were evaluated using Fisher's exact test. ResultsOf 121 women with complete follow-up, all had family (35.5%) or personal (20.7%) history of breast cancer, or both (43.8%). Twenty-four women (19.8%) were recalled by at least one modality. Recalls increased from 5.0% to 13.2% (p = 0.002) when ABUS was added to FFDM and from 3.3% to 10.7% (p = 0.004) when ABUS was added to DBT. Findings recalled by both readers were more likely to result in a recommendation for short term follow-up imaging or tissue biopsy compared to findings recalled by only one reader (100% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.041). The cancer detection rate was 8.3 per 1000 screens (1/121); mode of detection: FFDM and DBT. ConclusionsAdding ABUS significantly increased the recall rate of both FFDM and DBT screening. Double reading of ABUS during early phase adoption may reduce false positive recalls.

Detection Rates for Benign and Malignant Diagnoses on Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Statewide Mammography Registry Study.

The objective of our study was to determine whether detection rates of specific benign and malignant diagnoses differ for breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone. We analyzed observational data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System, including 86,349 DBT screening examinations and 97,378 FFDM screening examinations performed at eight radiology facilities in Vermont that adopted DBT screening during 2012-2016. We determined the most severe diagnosis made within 6 months after positive screening examinations. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare detection rates for specific diagnoses on DBT versus FFDM. Compared with FFDM, DBT had a lower recall rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85) but comparable biopsy rate (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17), benign biopsy rate (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.29), and cancer detection rate (OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14). Among benign diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for nonproliferative lesions (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.53), fibroepithelial proliferations (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.81), proliferative lesions without atypia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.42), atypical lesions (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.38), and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61). Among malignant diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70-1.57) and invasive breast cancer (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13), with no statistically significant differences in detection of invasive ductal carcinoma (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06), invasive lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59-2.07), or invasive mixed ductal-lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 0.65-3.39). Compared with FFDM, breast cancer screening with DBT has a lower recall rate while detecting a similar distribution of benign and malignant diagnoses.

Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls.

Enhancing quality using the inspection program (EQUIP) augments the FDA/MQSA program ensuring image quality review and implementation of corrective processes. We compared technical recalls between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Prospectively recorded technical recalls of consecutive screening mammograms (10/2013 - 12/2017) were compared for imaging modality [FFDM, DBT + FFDM, DBT + synthesized mammography (SynM)], images requested, and indication(s) (motion, positioning, technical/artifact). Chi-squared tests evaluated statistical significance between proportions. Of 48,324 screening mammograms, 277 (0.57%) patients were recalled for 360 indications with 371 repeated views. DBT exams had significantly less recalls compared to FFDM ( ; ). 98 (27.2%) recalls were for motion, 192 (53.3%) positioning, and 70 (19.4%) technique/artifacts. Theses indications for technical recall were compared for FFDM, DBT + FFDM, and DBT + SynM. There were significant differences in the indications for technical recall prior to and after implementing DBT + SynM ( ; ). Technical recalls declined significantly with the inclusion of DBT (SynM/FFDM) compared to FFDM alone. Recalls for motion demonstrated the greatest decrease. Positioning remains a dominant factor for technical recall regardless of modality, supporting the opportunity for continued technologist education in positioning to decrease technical recalls.

Performance of Screening Breast MRI After Negative Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus After Negative Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women at Higher Than Average Risk for Breast Cancer

The objective of our study was to compare the supplemental cancer yield and performance of breast MRI in women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer after negative 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) or negative digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Retrospective review identified 4418 screening breast MRI examinations: 2291 were performed from January 2010 through January 2012 of patients with a negative FFDM examination in the 12 months before MRI (FFDM group), and 2127 were performed from January 2013 through January 2015 of patients with a negative DBT examination in the 12 months before MRI (DBT group). Screening indications included genetic predisposition, personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion, prior chest irradiation, family history, or other risk factors conferring a lifetime risk of greater than 20%. Supplemental cancer detection rate (CDR), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), and positive predictive values (PPVs) were estimated with 95% exact CIs. Logistic regression analysis, adjusting for differences in patient demographics, was used to compare metrics. There was no significant difference in the CDR of MRI in the FFDM group versus the DBT group (11 vs 16 cancers per 1000 examinations, respectively; odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2; p = 0.23). The AIR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were 7.4%, 15%, 23%, and 28% for the FFDM group and 7.3%, 22%, 33%, and 35% for the DBT group, with no statistical differences. Of the cancers detected in both groups, the majority were invasive, less than 1 cm, and node-negative. In women at higher-than-average risk of breast cancer screened with DBT, the supplemental CDR of MRI is similar to that of MRI after FFDM screening, with most cancers being invasive, subcentimeter, and node-negative.

Breast compression across consecutive examinations among females participating in BreastScreen Norway.

Breast compression is used in mammography to improve image quality and reduce radiation dose. However, optimal values for compression force are not known, and studies have found large variation in use of compression forces between breast centres and radiographers. We investigated breast compression parameters, including compression force, compression pressure and compressed breast thickness across four consecutive full field digital mammography screening examinations for 25,143 subsequently screened females aged 50-69 years. Information from females attending four consecutive screening examinations at two breast centres in BreastScreen Norway during January 2007 - March 2016 was available. We compared the changes in compression force, compression pressure and compressed breast thickness from the first to fourth consecutive screening examination, stratified by craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view. Compression force, compression pressure and compressed breast thickness increased relatively by 18.3, 14.4 and 8.4% respectively, from first to fourth consecutive screening examination in CC view (p<0.001 for all). For MLO view, the values increased relatively by 12.3% for compression force, 9.9% for compression pressure and 6.9% for compressed breast thickness from first to fourth consecutive screening examination (p<0.001 for all). We observed increasing values of breast compression parameters across consecutive screening examinations. Further research should investigate the effect of this variation on image quality and females' experiences of discomfort and pain. Breast compression force, compression pressure and compressed breast thickness increased across consecutive screening examinations, which might be of influence for the females' experiences of discomfort and pain during the examination and for image quality.

Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

The purpose of this article is to compare outcomes of findings seen on one view only from screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and FFDM plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). A retrospective review was performed of 103,070 consecutive screening mammograms obtained from February 2011 through June 2014 at two community-based breast centers. Recalled findings prospectively seen on one view only were analyzed. Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test were performed, and 95% CIs were determined. Mammograms were acquired using FFDM (n = 71,656) and FFDM-DBT (n = 31,414) during the study period, and 2213 FFDM (3.1%) and 433 FFDM-DBT (1.4%) mammograms were recalled for one-view-only findings (p < 0.0001). The final study population (1592 FFDM and 354 FFDM-DBT) was defined after 689 of these recalled FFDM and 92 of these recalled FFDM-DBT examinations were excluded for insufficient mammographic follow-up (< 24 months). Summation artifacts accounted for more one-view-only findings from FFDM (1067/1592; 67.0%) than FFDM-DBT (190/354; 53.7%) (p < 0.0001). In the FFDM cohort, 28 one-view-only findings proved malignant (24 invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC], one invasive lobular carcinoma [ILC], and three ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]). In the FFDM-DBT cohort, 14 one-view-only findings proved malignant (11 IDC, one ILC, and two DCIS). The positive predictive value (PPV) of a one-view-only finding was significantly lower for FFDM (1.8%) than for FFDM-DBT (4.0%) (p = 0.010). One-view-only findings occur with both FFDM and FFDM-DBT and remain an important but uncommon sign of malignancy. They are more frequent, are more likely to represent summation artifacts, and have a lower PPV with FFDM than with FFDM-DBT.

Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

In a biennial screening mammography programme, we analysed the trends in incidence of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancers in the era of screen-film mammography (SFM) screening, the period of the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) screening and the period of FFDM screening. We also investigated a possible association between the incidence and grading of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancer. In the southern part of the Netherlands, FFDM screening gradually replaced SFM screening between May 2009 and April 2010. We included a consecutive series of 484, 422 screens obtained between July 2005 and July 2015 and divided these screens into three groups; SFM-only cohort, transition cohort and FFDM-only cohort. A total of 3059 referred women were diagnosed with DCIS (n=623) or invasive breast cancer (n=2436). The majority of DCIS were high-grade (48.2%), whereas the majority of the invasive breast cancers were low-grade (45.4%) or intermediate-grade (41.6%). The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screened women showed the same distribution by grade in both groups. The transition to FFDM was characterised by an increased overall detection rate of invasive cancers. Screening mammography detects mostly high-grade DCIS and low- or intermediate-grade invasive cancers. The grade distribution as well as the CDR in the years after the introduction of FFDM remained stable compared to the era of SFM screening. By diagnosing and treating high-grade DCIS, which otherwise may develop into high-grade invasive carcinoma, our findings provide new evidence for the beneficial value of screening mammography programmes.

Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography

BackgroundTo determine the proportion of “true” interval cancers and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers prior to, during and after the transition from screen-film mammography screening (SFM) to full-field digital mammography screening (FFDM).MethodsWe included all women with interval cancers detected between January 2006 and January 2014. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports of all women recalled at screening mammography and of all women with interval breast cancers were collected. Two experienced screening radiologists reviewed the diagnostic mammograms, on which the interval cancers were diagnosed, as well as the prior screening mammograms and determined whether or not the interval cancer had been missed on the most recent screening mammogram. If not missed, the cancer was considered an occult (“true”) interval cancer.ResultsA total of 442 interval cancers had been diagnosed, of which 144 at SFM with a prior SFM (SFM-SFM), 159 at FFDM with a prior SFM (FFDM-SFM) and 139 at FFDM with a prior FFDM (FFDM-FFDM). The transition from SFM to FFDM screening resulted in the diagnosis of more occult (“true”) interval cancers at FFDM-SFM than at SFM-SFM (65.4% (104/159) versus 49.3% (71/144), P < 0.01), but this increase was no longer statistically significant in women who had been screened digitally for the second time (57.6% (80/139) at FFDM-FFDM versus 49.3% (71/144) at SFM-SFM). Tumor characteristics were comparable for the three interval cancer cohorts, except of a lower porportion (75.7 and 78.0% versus 67.2% af FFDM-FFDM, P < 0.05) of invasive ductal cancers at FFDM with prior FFDM.ConclusionsAn increase in the proportion of occult interval cancers is observed during the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography. However, this increase seems temporary and is no longer detectable after the second round of digital screening. Tumor characteristics and type of surgery are comparable for interval cancers detected prior to, during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography, except of a lower proportion of invasive ductal cancers after the transition.

Characteristics and prognosis of interval cancers after biennial screen-film or full-field digital screening mammography.

We determined the characteristics and prognosis of interval breast cancers (IC) at screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) screening mammography. The study population consisted of 417,746 consecutive screening mammograms (302,699 SFM screens and 115,047 FFDM screens), obtained between 2000 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, surgical reports, and pathology results. A total of 800 ICs had been diagnosed in the screened population, of which 288 detected in the first year (early ICs) and 512 in the second year (late ICs) after a negative screen. 31.3% of early IC's and 19.1% of late IC's, respectively, were visible in retrospect on the latest previous screens, but had been missed during screening (P<0.001). Missed invasive ICs were larger (28.5mm vs. 23.9mm, P=0.003) and showed a higher fraction of T3+cancers (16.9 vs. 8.5%, P=0.02) than true ICs (i.e., not visible at the latest screen). A higher portion of missed than true ICs underwent mastectomy (44.7 vs. 30.8%, P=0.002). We found no differences in mammographic and tumor characteristics for early ICs, detected either after SFM or FFDM. Late ICs following FFDM were more often true ICs than missed ICs (69.0 vs. 57.6%, P=0.03) and more often receptor triple negative (P=0.02), compared to late ICs at SFM. Interval cancer subgroups showed comparable overall survival. Interval cancer subgroups show distinctive mammographic and tumor characteristics but a comparable overall survival.

Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the 3D automated breast ultrasound (3D ABUS) when added to full field digital screening mammography (FFDSM), on breast cancer detection and recall rates in asymptomatic women with dense breasts examined in a high-volume breast cancer screening mammography center. Methods and material1668 asymptomatic women, age 40–74 years, with heterogeneously dense parenchyma (ACR3) or extremely dense breast (ACR4) were included in the study. FFDSM was performed using standard craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views followed by anteroposterior (AP); lateral (LAT) and medial (MED) acquisitions of 3D ABUS in both breasts. All mammograms were double read by two dedicated breast radiologists. The 3D ABUS was read by the first radiologist immediately after reading the mammograms. The second reader looked at the 3D ABUS only if there was a need for consensus discussion because of unclear or abnormal mammograms or 3D ABUS. ResultsThe combined FFDSM and 3D ABUS generated a total of 6.6 cancers per 1000 women screened (95% CI: 3.0, 10.2; p<0.001) compared with 4.2 cancers per 1000 women screened (95% CI) for FFDSM alone. The difference in yield was an additional 2.4 detected cancers per 1000 women screened (95% CI: 0.6, 4.8; p<0.001). The corresponding recall rate per 1000 women screened was 13.8 (95% CI: 9.0, 19.8) for FFDSM alone and 22.8 for combined FFDSM and ABUS (95% CI: 16.2, 30.0), yielding a difference of an additional 9.0 recalls per 1000 women screened (95% CI: 3.0, 15.0; p=0.004). ConclusionThe addition of 3D ABUS to FFDSM in women with ACR3 or ACR4 breast density significantly improved invasive breast cancer detection rate with an acceptable recall increase.

Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms.

BackgroundFull-field digital mammography (FFDM) has largely replaced film-screen mammography in the US. Breast density assessed from film mammograms is strongly associated with breast cancer risk, but data are limited for processed FFDM images used for clinical care.MethodsWe conducted a case-control study nested among non-Hispanic white female participants of the Research Program in Genes, Environment and Health of Kaiser Permanente Northern California who were aged 40 to 74 years and had screening mammograms acquired on Hologic FFDM machines. Cases (n = 297) were women with a first invasive breast cancer diagnosed after a screening FFDM. For each case, up to five controls (n = 1149) were selected, matched on age and year of FFDM and image batch number, and who were still under follow-up and without a history of breast cancer at the age of diagnosis of the matched case. Percent density (PD) and dense area (DA) were assessed by a radiological technologist using Cumulus. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for breast cancer associated with PD and DA, modeled continuously in standard deviation (SD) increments and categorically in quintiles, after adjusting for body mass index, parity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, breast area, and menopausal hormone use.ResultsMedian intra-reader reproducibility was high with a Pearson’s r of 0.956 (range 0.902 to 0.983) for replicate PD measurements across 23 image batches. The overall mean was 20.02 (SD, 14.61) for PD and 27.63 cm2 (18.22 cm2) for DA. The adjusted ORs for breast cancer associated with each SD increment were 1.70 (95 % confidence interval, 1.41–2.04) for PD, and 1.54 (1.34–1.77) for DA. The adjusted ORs for each quintile were: 1.00 (ref.), 1.49 (0.91–2.45), 2.57 (1.54–4.30), 3.22 (1.91–5.43), 4.88 (2.78–8.55) for PD, and 1.00 (ref.), 1.43 (0.85–2.40), 2.53 (1.53–4.19), 2.85 (1.73–4.69), 3.48 (2.14–5.65) for DA.ConclusionsPD and DA measured using Cumulus on processed FFDM images are positively associated with breast cancer risk, with similar magnitudes of association as previously reported for film-screen mammograms. Processed digital mammograms acquired for routine clinical care in a general practice setting are suitable for breast density and cancer research.

Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM). We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013). At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2% of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1%). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDM recalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2%, P = 0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8%, P = 0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8% after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6%). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8%, P = 0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5%, P = 0.007). More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers. • FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality. • The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening. • Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers. • These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.

Digital breast tomosynthesis at screening assessment: are two views always necessary?

The current recommendation from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can be used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities in place of spot compression views and when used should be performed in two projections. The aim of the study was to assess whether two-view DBT is necessary if the abnormality is seen only in one view on initial full-field digital mammography (FFDM). 617 cases with possible masses, distortions and asymmetrical densities visualized only in one view on screening FFDM were included. All of these females underwent two-view DBT, clinical examination and ultrasound. The FFDM and DBT findings on each view were compared and correlated with the histological diagnosis. 586 of 617 cases had normal or benign findings on further assessment, and no additional information was obtained on the other DBT view. There were 31 confirmed cancers. In 26 cases (84%), the cancer was seen on the corresponding DBT view. No cancer was seen on the other DBT view alone. Five cancers (16%) were not seen on either view on DBT owing to technical reasons. No cancers would have been missed if only the corresponding DBT view was performed. Two-view DBT may not be necessary when used for further assessment of possible screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities. Larger studies should be undertaken to investigate this further. One-view DBT may be adequate in assessing soft-tissue abnormalities seen only on one FFDM view.