Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study.

AIM To examine the interpretive performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) compared to DM alone in a series of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) and to assess whether DBT can be used to characterise ILC. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective, multi-reader study was conducted of 83 mammographic examinations of women with 107 newly diagnosed ILCs ascertained at histology. Consenting women underwent both DM and DBT acquisitions. Twelve radiologists, with varying mammography experience, interpreted DM images alone, reporting lesion location, mammographic features, and malignancy probability using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1-5; they then reviewed DBT images in addition to DM, and reported the same parameters. Statistical analyses compared sensitivity, false-positive rates (FPR), and interpretive performance using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), for reading with DM versus DM plus DBT. RESULTS Multi-reader pooled ROC analysis for DM plus DBT yielded AUC=0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.91), which was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than DM alone with AUC=0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). DBT plus DM significantly increased pooled sensitivity (85%) compared to DM alone (70%; p<0.0001). FPR did not vary significantly with the addition of DBT to DM. Interpreting with DBT (compared to DM alone) increased the correct identification of ILCs depicted as architectural distortions (84% versus 65%, respectively) or as masses (89% versus 70%), increasing interpretive performance for both experienced and less-experienced readers; larger gains in AUC were shown for less-experienced radiologists. Multifocal and/or multicentric and bilateral disease was more frequently identified on DM with DBT. CONCLUSION Adding DBT to DM significantly improved the accuracy of mammographic interpretation for ILCs and contributed to characterising disease extent.

[1]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[2]  N. Houssami.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening , 2015, Expert review of medical devices.

[3]  C. Reiner,et al.  Mammography, sonography and MRI for detection and characterization of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. , 2008, Breast disease.

[4]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[5]  L. Dossus,et al.  Lobular breast cancer: incidence and genetic and non-genetic risk factors , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[6]  Unni Haakenaasen,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[7]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. , 2008, Radiology.

[8]  Jules H Sumkin,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  I. Andersson,et al.  Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. , 1991, Radiology.

[10]  Per Skaane,et al.  Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. , 2013, Breast.

[11]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[12]  T M Svahn,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[13]  Bonnie N Joe,et al.  Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings , 2015, The breast journal.

[14]  J. Lee,et al.  Comparison of Clinicopathological Features and Treatment Results between Invasive Lobular Carcinoma and Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast , 2015, Journal of breast cancer.

[15]  Daniel B Kopans,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[17]  P. Bult,et al.  Mammographic detection and staging of invasive lobular carcinoma. , 2006, Clinical imaging.

[18]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  O. Karatağ,et al.  Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic evaluation. , 2011, Diagnostic and interventional radiology.

[20]  C P Lawinski,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Clinical radiology.

[21]  Jamie R. Kutasovic,et al.  Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and ’omics , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[22]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[23]  Elizabeth A Rafferty,et al.  Digital mammography: novel applications. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[24]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. , 2013, Radiology.

[25]  D. Tiezzi,et al.  Evolving concepts in breast lobular neoplasia and invasive lobular carcinoma, and their impact on imaging methods , 2014, Insights into Imaging.

[26]  Federica Zanca,et al.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. , 2012, Radiology.

[27]  C. de Bazelaire,et al.  Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience. , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[28]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[29]  V. Cocquyt,et al.  Lobular carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular cancer of the breast , 2005, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[30]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[31]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.