Search

Background Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer detection and recall rates compared with those obtained with digital mammography (DM); however, the impact of DBT on patient survival has not been established. False-negative (FN) screening examinations can be a surrogate for long-term outcomes, such as breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Purpose To determine if screening with DBT is associated with lower FN rates, detection of cancers with more favorable prognoses, and improved performance outcomes versus DM. Materials and Methods This retrospective study involved 10 academic and community practices. DM screening examinations 1 year prior to DBT implementation and DBT screening examinations from the start date until June 30, 2013, were linked to cancers through June 30, 2014, with data collection in 2016 and analysis in 2018-2019. Cancers after FN examinations were characterized by presentation, either symptomatic or asymptomatic. FN rates, sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection and recall rates, positive predictive values, tumor size, histologic features, and receptor profile were compared. Results A total of 380 641 screening examinations were included. There were 183 989 DBT and 196 652 DM examinations. With DBT, rates trended lower for overall FN examinations (DBT, 0.6 per 1000 screens; DM, 0.7 per 1000 screens; P = .20) and symptomatic FN examinations (DBT, 0.4 per 1000 screens; DM, 0.5 per 1000 screens; P = .21). Asymptomatic FN rates trended higher in women with dense breasts (DBT, 0.14 per 1000 screens; DM: 0.07 per 1000 screens; P = .07). With DBT, improved sensitivity (DBT, 89.8% [966 of 1076 cancers]; DM, 85.6% [789 of 922 cancers]; P = .004) and specificity (DBT, 90.7% [165 830 of 182 913 examinations]; DM, 89.1% [174 480 of 195 730 examinations]; P < .001) were observed. Overall, cancers identified with DBT were more frequently invasive ( P < .001), had fewer positive lymph nodes ( P = .04) and distant metastases ( P = .01), and had lower odds of an FN finding of advanced cancer (odds ratio, 0.9 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.5]). Conclusion Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis improves sensitivity and specificity and reveals more invasive cancers with fewer nodal or distant metastases. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Schattner in this issue.

Purpose: To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening., Methods: Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3-22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected., Results: Performance parameters were compared for women screened with digital mammography alone (n = 278,908) and digital mammography + tomosynthesis (n = 173,414). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography produced significant reductions in recall rates for all age groups and significant increases in cancer detection rates for women 40-69. Largest recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis was for women 40-49, decreasing from 137 (95% CI 117-156) to 115 (95% CI 95-135); difference, -22 (95% CI -26 to -18; P < .001). Simultaneous increase in invasive cancer detection rate for women 40-49 from 1.6 (95% CI 1.2-1.9) to 2.7 (95% CI 2.2-3.1) with tomosynthesis (difference, 1.1; 95% CI 0.6-1.6; P < .001) was observed., Conclusions: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography increased invasive cancer detection rates for women 40-69 and decreased recall rates for all age groups with largest performance gains seen in women 40-49. The similar performance seen with tomosynthesis screening for women in their 40s compared to digital mammography for women in their 50s argues strongly for commencement of mammography screening at age 40 using tomosynthesis.

Importance: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results., Objective: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect., Exposures: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012., Main Outcomes and Measures: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy., Results: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

Objective: Our objective was to investigate the use of MR imaging in preoperative staging and characterization of lobular carcinoma., Materials and Methods: MR imaging studies and mammographic studies in 20 patients with infiltrating lobular carcinoma were evaluated and correlated with pathology findings on serially sectioned tissue. The MR images and mammograms were reviewed retrospectively by three independent examiners unaware of the clinical, imaging, and pathology findings., Results: The extent of disease found pathologically correlated with that predicted by MR imaging studies in 85% of patients, compared with a 32% correlation (p < .0001) with mammographic studies. Interobserver agreement on lesion morphology and extent of disease was higher for MR imaging (91% and 100%, respectively) than for mammography (64% and 91%, respectively). The retrospective MR readings did not differ from the prospective reports. No false-positive lymphadenopathy was interpreted on MR imaging. Lymph nodes having metastatic lobular carcinoma on the pathology examination were missed on MR imaging in four patients., Conclusion: MR imaging is significantly more accurate than mammography in determining the extent of disease and characterizing the morphology of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. MR imaging may play a role in preoperative planning, especially when breast conservation is being considered.

Purpose: To assess whether rotating delivery of excitation off resonance (RODEO) breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can help detect ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, determine tumor extent, and differentiate pure DCIS from DCIS with an invasive component., Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients with DCIS lesions were evaluated with three-dimensional RODEO MR imaging. Nineteen patients had available mammograms for review., Results: MR imaging enabled detection of all 22 cases of DCIS, DCIS with microinvasion, or invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive intraductal component. A clumped enhancement pattern was seen on MR images in all cases of pure DCIS. Spiculated enhancement was seen in four of six (67%) patients who had DCIS with microinvasion and in nine of 11 (82%) who had invasive ductal carcinoma with extensive intraductal component. RODEO MR imaging enabled accurate determination of tumor extent in 21 of 22 (95%) patients. Mammography depicted 18 of 19 DCIS lesions. No mammographic feature helped differentiate pure DCIS from DCIS with microinvasion. Mammography enabled accurate determination of tumor extent in 14 of 19 (74%) patients., Conclusion: Three-dimensional RODEO MR imaging can be an adjunct to mammography because of its ability to enable better determination of tumor extent and differentiation of pure DCIS from DCIS with an invasive component.