Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis

Abstract

Background

The limited sensitivity of mammography in case of a high breast density often produces unclear or false-positive findings, so-called BI-RADS 3 lesions, which have to be followed up to prove benignity. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed to reduce such summation effects.

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of an additional DBT on the management of mammographic BI-RADS 3 findings and whether DBT can decrease the time to definitive diagnosis or not.

Material and Methods

We analyzed 87 patients with a mammographic non-calcified BI-RADS 3 lesion who underwent an additional DBT of the affected breast. A follow-up two-dimensional (2D) examination or a histological result of the lesion had to be available. The images were analyzed especially for the BI-RADS category and incremental diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, the inter-reader reliability and the radiation dose were evaluated.

Results

The BI-RADS category has been changed by the addition of DBT: 57.1% were assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2, 4.6% as BI-RADS 4, and only 38.3% remained as BI-RADS 3. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the three readers showed a good agreement for inter-reader reliability. No false-negative examination was found in the follow-ups. Nine lesions were biopsied (seven benign, two malignant). Both malignant lesions were suspicious in the DBT (BI-RADS 4). A significant higher glandular dose was necessary for the DBT.

Conclusion

DBT has the potential to reduce the recall-rate of BI-RADS 3 lesions and to find and diagnose malignant lesions earlier than 2D mammography alone.

Keywords

Mammography BI-RADS 3 digital breast tomosynthesis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Pisano

Gatsonis

Hendrick

et al.

Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–1783.

Carney

Miglioretti

Yankaskas

et al.

Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168–175.

Hubbard

Kerlikowske

Flowers

et al.

Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Int med 2011; 155: 481–492.

American college of radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® - Mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.

Varas

Leborgne

et al.

Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 691–695.

Vizcaino

Gadea

Andreo

et al.

Short-term follow-up in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219: 475–483.

Varas

Leborgne

. Non palpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 409–414.

Kapsimalakou

Waldmann

Katalinic

et al.

Follow-up of probably benign lesions in non-screening breast diagnostics. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290: 543–551.

Niklason

Christian

Niklason

et al.

Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399–406.

10.

Baker

. Breast tomosynthesis: State-of-the-Art and Review of the Literature. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: 1298–1310.

11.

Kopans

. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 299–308.

12.

Skaane

Gullien

Bjorndal

et al.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012; 53: 524–529.

13.

Skaane

Bandos

Gullien

et al.

Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267: 47–56.

14.

Tagliafico

Astengo

Cavagnetto

et al.

One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 539–544.

15.

Zuley

Bandos

Ganott

et al.

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 2013; 266: 89–95.

16.

Smith

. Full-field breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Manage 2005; 27: 25–31.

17.

Andersson

Ikeda

Zackrisson

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: 2817–2825.

18.

Diekmann

Bick

. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2001; 32: 281–287.

19.

Poplack

Tosteson

Kogel

et al.

Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 616–623.

20.

Kopans

Gavenonis

Halpern

et al.

Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 2011; 17: 638–644.

21.

Rafferty

Park

Philpotts

et al.

Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266: 104–113.

22.

Raghu

Durand

Andrejeva

et al.

Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 2016; 281: 54–61.

23.

Powell

Hawley

Lipari

et al.

Impact of the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendations for short-term follow-up. Acad Radiol 2017; 24: 302–307.

24.

Cicchetti

. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994; 6: 284–290.

25.

Michell

Iqbal

Wasan

et al.

A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 2012; 67: 976–981.

26.

Brandt

Craig

Hoskins

et al.

Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? Comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 291–298.

27.

Rafferty

Park

Philpotts

et al.

Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 273–281.

28.

Chung

Gliess

Gombos

et al.

Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 922–927.

29.

Olgar

Kahn

Gosch

. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 2012; 184: 911–918.

30.

Shin

Chang

Bae

et al.

Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and brest cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 1–8.