Search

Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess the "real-world" impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to detect breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening exams following 12 months of utilization in a subspecialized academic breast center. Methods: Following IRB approval, mammography audit reports, as specified in the BI-RADS atlas, were retrospectively generated for five radiologists reading at three locations during a 12-month time frame. One location had the AI tool (iCAD ProFound AI v2.0), and the other two locations did not. The co-primary endpoints were cancer detection rate (CDR) and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive values (PPVs) for cancer among screenings with abnormal interpretations (PPV1) and for biopsies performed (PPV3). Odds ratios (OR) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) summarized the impact of AI across radiologists using generalized estimating equations. Results: Nonsignificant differences were observed in CDR, AIR, and PPVs. The CDR was 7.3 with AI and 5.9 without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.9--1.7). The AIR was 11.7% with AI and 11.8% without AI (OR 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8--1.3). The PPV1 was 6.2% with AI and 5.0% without AI (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.97--1.7). The PPV3 was 33.3% with AI and 32.0% without AI (OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8--1.5). Conclusion: Although we are unable to show statistically significant changes in CDR and AIR outcomes in the two groups, the results are consistent with prior reader studies. There is a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in CDR with AI, without significant increases in AIR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. Methods: Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. Results: From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34-86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct postconsultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. Conclusion: A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a supplemental screening modality consistently demonstrating incremental cancer detection over mammography alone; however, its lengthy duration may limit widespread utilization. The study purpose was to assess feasibility of an abbreviated MBI protocol, providing readers with mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections only and assessing performance in lesion detection and localization. Methods: Retrospective IRB-exempt blinded reader study administered to 5 fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologists. Independent reads performed for 124 screening MBI cases, half abnormal and half negative/normal. Readers determined whether an abnormality was present, side of abnormality, and location of abnormality (medial/lateral). Abnormal cases had confirmatory biopsy or surgical pathology; normal cases had imaging follow-up ensuring true negative results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess performance. A false negative result indicated that a reader failed to detect abnormal uptake; a false positive result indicated a reader incorrectly called an abnormality for a negative case. Tests for association included chi-square, Fisher-exact, and analysis of variance. Results: Mean reader performance for detecting abnormal uptake: sensitivity 96.8%, specificity 98.7%, PPV 98.8%, and NPV 96.9%. Accuracy in localizing lesions to the medial or lateral breast was 100%. There were no associations in reader performance with reader experience, reader technique, lesion morphology, or lesion pathology. Median lesion size was 1.0 cm (range: 0.4-8.0 cm). All readers correctly identified 97.7% (42/43) of lesions with malignant or elevated risk pathology. Conclusion: An abbreviated MBI protocol (MLO images only) maintained high accuracy in lesion detection and localization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dense breast parenchyma obscures breast lesions and has been shown to be an independent risk factor for development of breast cancer. An ever-increasing number of states have approved laws requiring patient notification of dense breast tissue. Reviews of supplemental screening imaging modalities are available, but there is no consensus and little discussion regarding what radiologists are specifically doing to manage patients with dense breasts. Our goal was to survey breast imagers facing these issues in an effort to simplify dense breast management. A survey was administered via email to the Society of Breast Imaging member directory, designed to collect information regarding current practices in dense breast notification and supplemental screening. There were 223 surveys completed to entirety, including 38% from respondents in states without mandatory breast density reporting laws and 62% from states with reporting laws. A majority of respondents from both groups, 60% and 51% in those without and with laws, respectively, felt they lacked adequate resources to offer or sustain supplemental screening. In those offering supplemental imaging, the modalities offered varied widely as did the manner of offering a supplemental exam. Levels of satisfaction, concerns, and standard practices of respondents were also queried. Strategizing optimal imaging approaches and algorithms to handle dense breast management issues is important to maintain efficiency in breast imaging departments. Sharing current ideas and practices may facilitate a smoother workflow in mandatory dense breast reporting and supplemental imaging, allowing breast imagers to correct or prevent systems-based flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]