Search

Introduction: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors., Methods: Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively., Results: Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited., Conclusions: In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the diagnostic parameters of breast ultrasound (US) in the setting of routine radiological surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluate costs of the inclusion of breast US as well as any survival benefit of US detected cases of recurrence in surveillance., Methods: 622 patients underwent breast cancer surgery and follow up at Austin Health from July 2009 to December 2015. Retrospective data analysis was performed to determine; diagnostic parameters, financial costs of US and survival outcomes of US detected cases of recurrence., Results: Patients underwent 1-9 years of breast cancer surveillance, with a median of 4.24 years. 390 (62.7%) patients underwent additional breast US surveillance to mammography. 232 (38.3%) fit criteria for use of additional breast US. 199 abnormal imaging episodes occurred, leading to 16 screen detected-cases of locoregional recurrence. US alone generated 107 abnormal images and found 9 cancers. US had a sensitivity of 44.1%, specificity of 95.2% and positive predictive value of 11.7% in comparison to mammography; 20.6%, 97.4% and 9.9% respectively. US had a biopsy rate of 4.0% and lead to an incremental cancer detection rate of 0.38%. The cost of incremental cancer found was $31,463.72 AUD. Survival outcomes based on method of detection of recurrence were insignificant (p value = 0.71)., Conclusions: Breast US has a sensitivity of 44.1% and detected seven recurrences that were mammographically occult. Breast US has a similar PPV to mammography in surveillance. Breast US generated considerable biopsy rates and costs. Survival analysis was not able to detect any benefit of US detected cases of recurrence., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Breast lesions defined C3 at ultrasound (US)-guided fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) are probably benign, but exhibit atypias. We evaluate the results of US-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy (VABB) of these lesions. Patients diagnosed C3 by US-FNAC, submitted to US-VABB and with a minimum follow-up of 36 months or surgery were enrolled. Cost outcome of this diagnostic protocol was evaluated. We evaluated 138 patients with non-palpable C3 lesions. In 2/138 (1.4%) cases VABB results were inadequate. VABB diagnosed: 17/138 (12.3%) malignant and 119/138 (86.2%) benign lesions. In 28/138 cases (20.3%) surgery retrieved 18/28 (64.3%) malignant lesions. One false negative result of VABB was observed. Sensitivity and specificity of VABB resulted 94.4% and 100%. Our diagnostic algorithm estimated a 45% mean decrease of costs using VABB when compared with surgical biopsy of all C3 lesions.