Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of full field digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis using BIRADS score in a tertiary cancer care hospital

Abstract

Introduction: Breast cancer is one of the leading cancers in females worldwide, and its incidence has been rising at an exponential pace in the last 10 years even in India. Mammography has been the mainstay for detection of breast cancer over decades and has gradually advanced from screen film to full-field digital mammography. Recently, tomosynthesis has evolved as an advanced imaging investigation for early diagnosis of breast lesions in both diagnostic and screening settings. Aim of Study: To compare and evaluate the impact of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in the interpretation of BIRADS score in both diagnostic and screening settings. Settings and Design: A 1-year prospective longitudinal study was conducted in the Department of Radio-diagnosis in our institute using Hologic Selenia Dimensions for mammography as well as tomosynthesis. Materials and Methods: One hundred women known or suspected (opportunistic screening) for breast cancer were evaluated either with FFDM alone or both FFDM and DBT. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and P value were used to assess the various diagnostic criteria in our study. Results: Addition of DBT to FFDM results in a statistically significant increase in the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value, and a statistically significant decrease in the false positive rates. Similar results were noted in both diagnostic and screening cases. It was observed that, in most cases, i.e. a total of 47, DBT did not change the BIRADS scoring; however, its addition increased the diagnostic confidence. BIRADS was upgraded and downgraded in 14 and 31 cases, respectively, with the addition of DBT to FFDM. New lesions were seen with addition of DBT to FFDM in 8 cases. Conclusion: Addition of DBT to FFDM results in increase in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and a statistically significant decrease in false positive rates in both diagnostic and screening cases. As addition of tomosynthesis results in a significant decrease in recall rate, it should be added, at least, in all screening mammography programs.

Keywords

Breast cancer - mammography - opportunistic screening - tomosynthesis

• References

• 1 International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide [Internet]. 2012 [Accessed on June 2015]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx
• 2 Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: A perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183: 629-30
• 3 Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 347-60
• 4 Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1672-80
• 5 Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: Novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45: 831-43
• 6 Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol 2007; 42: 243-52
• 7 Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 616-23
• 8 Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P. et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: A comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2817-25
• 9 Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 586-91
• 10 Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: State-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: 1298-310
• 11 Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011; 32: 281-7
• 12 Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: Breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 917-29
• 13 Rafferty EA. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Breast Dis 2006; 9: 111-8
• 14 Uematsu T. The emerging role of breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 2013; 20: 204-12
• 15 Feng SS, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: Dosimetric characterization. Radiology 2012; 263: 35-42
• 16 Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: W172-6
• 17 Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012; 262: 61-8
• 18 Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013; 269: 694-700
• 19 Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton Jr. R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: An observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 1401-8
• 20 Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U. et al. Prospective trial comparing Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2061-71
• 21 Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA. et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme-a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19: i-xxv
• 22 Gennaro G, Toledano A, Di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M. et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: A clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1545-53
• 23 Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF. et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: Results of a multicentre, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266: 104-13
• 24 Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C. et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: A comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 320-4