Pursuing optimal thresholds to recommend breast biopsy by quantifying the value of tomosynthesis

A 2% threshold has been traditionally used to recommend breast biopsy in mammography. We aim to characterize how the biopsy threshold varies to achieve the maximum expected utility (MEU) of tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. A cohort of 312 patients, imaged with standard full field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), was selected for a reader study. Fifteen readers interpreted each patient’s images and estimated the probability of malignancy using two modes: FFDM versus FFDM + DBT. We generated receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves with the probabilities for all readers combined. We found that FFDM+DBT provided improved accuracy and MEU compared with FFDM alone. When DBT was included in the diagnosis along with FFDM, the optimal biopsy threshold increased to 2.7% as compared with the 2% threshold for FFDM alone. While understanding the optimal threshold from a decision analytic standpoint will not help physicians improve their performance without additional guidance (e.g. decision support to reinforce this threshold), the discovery of this level does demonstrate the potential clinical improvements attainable with DBT. Specifically, DBT has the potential to lead to substantial improvements in breast cancer diagnosis since it could reduce the number of patients recommended for biopsy while preserving the maximal expected utility.

[1]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves on the basis of optimal operating points. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[2]  H. Lynch,et al.  Psychologic Aspects of Cancer Genetic Testing: A Research Update for Clinicians , 1997 .

[3]  R. Richards-Kortum,et al.  A comparison of C/B ratios from studies using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  Marvin Zelen,et al.  Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms , 2009 .

[5]  C. Metz,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model , 2006 .

[7]  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.

[8]  J. Austoker,et al.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review , 2005, Psycho-oncology.

[9]  Dimitra Koulocheri,et al.  Pain in different methods of breast biopsy: emphasis on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. , 2008, Breast.

[10]  H. Nelson,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  M. Linver Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography , 2008 .

[12]  X. Varas,et al.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[14]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[15]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Statistical properties of a utility measure of observer performance compared to area under the ROC curve , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[16]  W. Youden,et al.  Index for rating diagnostic tests , 1950, Cancer.

[17]  Thomas A Sellers,et al.  Breast biopsy utilization: a population-based study. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[18]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[19]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Large-core breast biopsy: abnormal salivary cortisol profiles associated with uncertainty of diagnosis. , 2009, Radiology.

[20]  Noel T Brewer,et al.  Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[21]  S. Cummings,et al.  Personalizing Mammography by Breast Density and Other Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: Analysis of Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  Anthony Howell,et al.  Breast cancer risk-assessment models , 2007, Breast Cancer Research.

[23]  John Eng Receiver operating characteristic analysis: utility, reality, covariates, and the future. , 2013, Academic radiology.

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

[25]  Steven P Poplack,et al.  Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services. , 2005, Radiology.

[26]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  What Is the Optimal Threshold at Which to Recommend Breast Biopsy? , 2012, PloS one.

[27]  D. Vanel The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[28]  D. R. Lewis,et al.  Cancer survival and incidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. , 2003, The oncologist.

[29]  M J Schell,et al.  Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Jessica W T Leung,et al.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. , 2005, Radiology.

[31]  John M Boone,et al.  Estimating the Relative Utility of Screening Mammography , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Reader Variability in Mammography and Its Implications for Expected Utility over the Population of Readers and Cases , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  Vipat Kuruchittham,et al.  The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[34]  Kelly H. Zou,et al.  Optimal thresholds by maximizing or minimizing various metrics via ROC-type analysis. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[35]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Tipping the Balance of Benefits and Harms to Favor Screening Mammography Starting at Age 40 Years , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[36]  N. Obuchowski ROC analysis. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.