Diagnostic Performance of Adjunctive Imaging Modalities Compared to Mammography Alone in Women with Non-Dense and Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance of mammography (MG) alone versus MG combined with adjunctive imaging modalities, including handheld ultrasound (HHUS), automated breast ultrasound (ABUS), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with non-dense and dense breasts.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were searched up to October 2019. Quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

In dense breasts, adding adjunctive modalities significantly increased cancer detection rates (CDRs): HHUS (relative risk [RR] = 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.86; P = .0005); ABUS (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16-1.78; P = .0008); DBT (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.67; P = .001); CEM (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .003); and MRI (RR = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.81-2.58; P < .00001). The recall rate was significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89-2.17; P < .00001), ABUS (RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.81-1.99; P < .00001), and MRI (RR = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.73-4.25; P < .0001), but not by DBT (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95-1.36; P = .15). In non-dense breasts, HHUS and MRI showed significant increases in CDRs but not DBT: HHUS (RR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .04); MRI (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01); and DBT (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.13-1.75; P = .08). The recall rate was also significantly increased by HHUS (RR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28-1.59; P < .00001) and MRI (RR = 3.01; 95% CI, 1.68-5.39; P = .0002), whereas DBT showed a non-significant reduction (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05; P = .12).

CONCLUSION

Adding adjunctive modalities to MG increases CDRs in women with dense and non-dense breasts. Ultrasound and MRI increase recall rates across all breast densities; however, MRI results in higher values for both CDRs and recall rates.

Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the interpretative performance of two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of T1-stage invasive breast cancers, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 214 patients. For each patient, FFDM and DBT were performed between January and June 2013, and SM was reconstructed from DBT data. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded visibility scores and morphologies of cancers. Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM were compared. Percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were compared for tumour size, and presence of calcifications for each observer.

RESULTS

Observer sensitivity showed no difference for detection with SM and FFDM (P > 0.05). One observer showed a higher specificity (P = 0.02) and higher positive predictive value with SM (95 % CI 0.6-16.4), but the differences in the corresponding values between SM and FFDM for the other observers were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses according to tumour size and presence of calcifications, percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM are comparable for detecting T1-stage breast cancers. Therefore, our results indicate that SM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging.

KEY POINTS

• DBT plus FFDM increases radiation dose compared to FFDM alone. • Detecting T1-stage cancers with only SM is comparable to detection with FFDM. • Two-dimensional SM may replace dose-requiring FFDM in DBT-based imaging.