Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study

Background Data on the value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for further assessment of screen-detected lesions are still limited. Purpose To compare screening mammography, single-view DBT and ultrasound-information (TS) vs. screening mammography, additional views and ultrasound-information (AV) for assessment of screen-detected abnormalities. Material and Methods The use of wide-angle DBT for screen-detected, soft-tissue abnormalities requiring additional views was investigated: 241 cases (206 benign and 35 malignant lesions), verified by histology or two-year follow-up, were read by ten readers as TS and as AV sets, yielding 2410 diagnoses for each set. Readings were randomly sequenced. Results The mean interval between readings was nine weeks (random sequence). Evaluation was breast-based. Overall, in terms of area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC; varying degree of suspicion cutoff), TS and AV readings showed similar performance: for TS, AUC was 0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.871–0.907) and for AV, AUC was 0.903 (95% CI = 0.886–0.921). TS readings had slightly higher sensitivity than AV readings (96.9% vs. 95.4%) but lower specificity (50% vs. 58.1%) and more variations between reader performance; absolute false negatives (FN) were reduced in 8/16 readers, equal in 5/16, and increased in only 3/16. Conclusion This study broadly confirms previous data showing equivalence of DBT to AV. However, bias against TS may have occurred since the region of interest was not indicated in the TS set as compared to its obvious identification on the AV set by the selected spot views. A key finding is that reader experience with DBT may be more important than so far reported.

[1]  S. Heywang-Köbrunner,et al.  Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis , 2017, Breast Care.

[2]  S. Heywang-Köbrunner,et al.  Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. , 2017, Clinical radiology.

[3]  X. Castells,et al.  Risk of breast cancer after false‐positive results in mammographic screening , 2016, Cancer medicine.

[4]  G. Balls,et al.  Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft tissue breast lesions , 2015, Breast Cancer Research.

[5]  The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. , 2014, Clinical radiology.

[6]  I. Vejborg,et al.  Increased risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive test: the role of misclassification. , 2014, Cancer epidemiology.

[7]  KathleenR. Brandt,et al.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[9]  Sunil R. Lakhani,et al.  WHO classification of tumours of the breast , 2012 .

[10]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[11]  Giuseppe Rescinito,et al.  One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis , 2012, European Radiology.

[12]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  J. Coebergh,et al.  Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[14]  S. Duffy,et al.  An audit of assessment procedures in women who develop breast cancer after a negative result , 2004, Journal of medical screening.