Clinical performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in pre-surgical evaluation of breast malignant lesions in dense breasts: a single center study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, with ultrasound, full field digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast tumors.

METHODS

This open-label, single center, prospective study, included 160 dense breast women with at least one suspicious mammary lesion evaluated by ultrasound, full field digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in whom a mammary tumor was histologically proven after surgery performed at the European Institute of Oncology between January 2013 and December 2015. Following the complete diagnostic procedure, the patients were further investigated by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography prior to surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, the detection rate of malignant breast lesions (in situ and invasive) was 93.8% (165/176) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, 94.4% (168/178) for ultrasound, 85.5 (147/172) for full field digital mammography and 97.7% (173/177) for magnetic resonance imaging. Radiological measurements were concordant with the post-surgical pathological measurements of the invasive tumor (i.e., within 5 mm) in: 64.6% for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, 62.0% for ultrasound, 45.2% for full field digital mammography (p < 0.0001) and 69.9% for magnetic resonance imaging (p = 0.28); underestimated in: 17.4% for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, 19.6% for ultrasound, 24.2% for full field digital mammography (p = 0.03) and 6.7% for magnetic resonance imaging (p = 0.0005); and overestimated in: 16.2% for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, 16.6% for ultrasound, 16.6% for full field digital mammography and 22.7% for magnetic resonance imaging (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves on full field digital mammography and is comparable to ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in terms of detection sensitivity and size estimation of malignant lesions in dense breasts.

Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of double reading automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) when added to full field digital mammography (FFDM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening.

METHODS

From April 2014 to June 2015, 124 women with dense breasts and intermediate to high breast cancer risk were recruited for screening with FFDM, DBT, and ABUS. Readers used FFDM and DBT in clinical practice and received ABUS training prior to study initiation. FFDM or DBT were first interpreted alone by two independent readers and then with ABUS. All recalled women underwent diagnostic workup with at least one year of follow-up. Recall rates were compared using the sign test; differences in outcomes were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of 121 women with complete follow-up, all had family (35.5%) or personal (20.7%) history of breast cancer, or both (43.8%). Twenty-four women (19.8%) were recalled by at least one modality. Recalls increased from 5.0% to 13.2% (p = 0.002) when ABUS was added to FFDM and from 3.3% to 10.7% (p = 0.004) when ABUS was added to DBT. Findings recalled by both readers were more likely to result in a recommendation for short term follow-up imaging or tissue biopsy compared to findings recalled by only one reader (100% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.041). The cancer detection rate was 8.3 per 1000 screens (1/121); mode of detection: FFDM and DBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ABUS significantly increased the recall rate of both FFDM and DBT screening. Double reading of ABUS during early phase adoption may reduce false positive recalls.

[Value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the diagnosis of breast lesions]

Objective: To assess the value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Methods: Two hundred and fifty-three breast lesions in 250 patients were selected in this study. All lesions were confirmed pathologically. Preoperative diagnosis was performed independently with full-field digital mammography (FFDM), DBT and DBT plus FFDM, respectively. The diagnostic value of DBT for breast lesions was evaluated based on the pathological diagnosis as the gold standard. The diagnostic performance of DBT and FFDM for breast lesions was compared between the groups with different ages, mammary gland densities and hormone levels. The sensitivity of DBT and FFDM was compared between the groups with different pathological types and different sizes of breast cancer. The correlation between the longest diameter of breast cancers and pathological measurements shown on DBT and FFDM was analyzed. Results: The areas under ROC curves were 0.890, 0.833 and 0.890 for DBT, FFDM and DBT plus FFDM, respectively. The areas under ROC curves for DBT or DBT plus FFDM were significantly greater than that for FFDM (P<0.05). In the group with breast density>50%, group with age ≤50 and non-menopause group, all the areas under ROC curves for DBT or DBT plus FFDM were all significantly larger than that for FFDM (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in the group with breast density ≤50%, group with age>50 and menopause group (P>0.05). The sensitivity for both DBT and FFDM in the diagnosis of carcinoma in situ was 90.9% (10/11). The sensitivity for DBT and FFDM in the diagnosis of non-carcinoma in situ was 92.3% (120/130) and 83.8% (109/130), respectively. The sensitivity in the groups with the longest diameter of foci >0 mm but ≤10 mm, >10 mm but ≤20 mm, >20 mm but ≤30 mm, and >30 mm but ≤40 mm were 51.7% (4/7), 93.8% (61/65), 96.7% (30/31) and 100% (11/11), respectively, for DBT, and were 51.7% (4/7), 78.5% (51/65), 93.5% (29/31), and 100% (11/11), respectively, for FFDM. The correlation coefficients between the longest diameter of breast cancers and pathological measurements shown on DBT and FFDM were 0.905 and 0.849, respectively (P<0.001). Conclusions: Compared with FFDM, DBT shows a higher diagnostic efficiency in patients with breast density >50%, age ≤50 years and non-menopause, non-carcinoma in situ, and the longest diameter of lesions >10 mm but ≤ 20 mm. The longest diameter of breast lesions is more accurately shown on DBT.

Impact of full field digital mammography on the classification and mammographic characteristics of interval breast cancers

OBJECTIVE

Full field digital mammography (FFDM) is increasingly replacing screen film mammography (SFM) in breast screening programs. Interval breast cancers are an issue in all screening programs and the purpose of our study is to assess the impact of FFDM on the classification of interval breast cancers at independent blind review and to compare the mammographic features of interval cancers at FFDM and SFM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 138 cases of interval breast cancer, 76 following an FFDM screening examination and 62 following screening with SFM. The prior screening mammogram was assessed by each of five consultant breast radiologists who were blinded to the site of subsequent cancer. Subsequent review of the diagnostic mammogram was performed and cases were classified as missed, minimal signs, occult or true interval. Mammographic features of the interval cancer at diagnosis and any abnormality identified on the prior screening mammogram were recorded.

RESULTS

The percentages of cancers classified as missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly, 10.5% (8 of 76) at FFDM and 8.1% (5 of 62) at SFM (p=.77). There were significantly less interval cancers presenting as microcalcifications (alone or in association with another abnormality) following screening with FFDM, 16% (12 of 76) than following a SFM examination, 32% (20 of 62) (p=.02).

CONCLUSION

Interval breast cancers continue to pose a problem at FFDM. The switch to FFDM has changed the mammographic presentation of interval breast cancer, with less interval cancers presenting in association with microcalcifications.