Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound

ObjectiveRadiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus automated whole-breast ultrasound (AWBU) was compared with mammography alone.MethodsScreenings for non-palpable breast malignancies in women with radiographically dense breasts with contemporaneous mammograms and AWBU were reviewed by 12 radiologists blinded to the diagnoses; half the studies were abnormal. Readers first reviewed the 102 mammograms. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) and Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) likelihood ratings were recorded with location information for identified abnormalities. Readers then reviewed the mammograms and AWBU with knowledge of previous mammogram-only evaluation. We compared reader performance across screening techniques using absolute callback, areas under the curve (AUC), and figure of merit (FOM).ResultsTrue positivity of cancer detection increased 63%, with only a 4% decrease in true negativity. Reader-averaged AUC was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.808 versus 0.701) and likelihood scores (0.810 versus 0.703). Similarly, FOM was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.786 versus 0.613) and likelihood scores (0.791 versus 0.614).ConclusionAdding AWBU to mammography improved callback rates, accuracy of breast cancer detection, and confidence in callbacks for dense-breasted women.

[1]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[3]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. , 2007, Radiology.

[4]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. , 1982, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  Joan Leach,et al.  Expert heads a'rolling Melissa Leach Ian , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  Gunnar Eklund,et al.  Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985 .

[7]  L. Tabár,et al.  REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985, The Lancet.

[8]  K. Kelly,et al.  Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts , 2009, European Radiology.

[9]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Comparison of standard reading and computer aided detection (CAD) on a national proficiency test of screening mammography. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[10]  S. Okie Stem-cell research--signposts and roadblocks. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Yaffe,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography , 2007, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[12]  A R Padhani,et al.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS) , 2005, The Lancet.

[13]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[14]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[15]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[18]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[19]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.