Detection of masses in dense breasts - a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography

Congress:

ECR 2020

Poster Number:

C-10043

Type:

Scientific Exhibit

Keywords:

Performed at one institution, Diagnostic or prognostic study, Retrospective, Cancer, Comparative studies, Mammography, Breast

Authors:

A. Gurando¹, T. Babkina², T. Kozarenko¹, D. Suleimenova³; ¹Kyiv/UA, ²Kiev/UA, ³Nur-Sultan/KZ

DOI:

10.26044/ecr2020/C-10043

DOI-Link:

https://dx.doi.org/10.26044/ecr2020/C-10043

Fig. 3: Case №1 (part 2). Dense fibroglandular breast tissue obscured suspicious mass...

Fig. 2: Case №1 (part 1).A 51-year old asymptomatic female with no personal or family...

Fig. 5: Case №2 (part 1). A 56 years old female with focal pain in the left breast...

Fig. 6: Case №2 (part 2).Dense fibroglandular breast tissue partially obscured...

Fig. 4: Sensitivity and Specificity for DBT and FFDM and Graphical interpretation of...

Fig. 1: Breast compostion categories according ACR BI-RADS Atlas 5th Edition. a -...

Fig. 7: Case №3 (part 1). A 48 years old female with palpable lump in the right...

Fig. 8: Case №3 (part 2). Dense fibroglandular breast tissue obscured suspicious mass...

Fig. 7: Case №3 (part 1). A 48 years old female with palpable lump in the right...

Purpose

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in clinical practice has been increasing continuously over the last decade. A number of early clinical studies has showed a higher accuracy of DBT compared to standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM)[1-4]. In screening with mammography the sensitivity to nonpalpable cancer in women with dense breasts is as low as 30-48%[5].The termbreast density refers to the relative amount of radiopaque epithelial and stromal tissue elements compared with the amount of radiolucent fatty elements seen in mammography[6].In the newest 5th...

Methods and materials

Weretrospectlyanalyzed archives betweenJanuary 2016 to December 2018.1383 patients underwent FFDM, DBT and hand-held full breast ultrasound (HHUS)for both diagnostic andscreening purposes.The study included 347 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with dense breasts(C and D),with mass on any imaging modality were included. First imaging modality was FFDM followed by DBT and HHUS in order to establish correlation with mammographic findings.All BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions underwent biopsy with pathology. Benign nature was determined by imaging follow up for 2 years.Age of the patients ranged from 32 years...

Results

Sensitivity of FFDM was 61,3% [0,422 - 0,789] and sensitivity of DBT was 77,4% [0,589 - 0,904]. Specificity of FFDM was 92.7% [0,893 - 0,953] that was 2.2% lower than the specificity of DBT- 94,9% [0,919 - 0,971].FFDM did not depict cancer in 12 (38, 7%) out of 31 patients; DBT failed to detect cancer in 7 (22,5%) out of 31patients with cancer which we found on HHUS examination.There was statistically significant difference in between DBT AUC and FFDM AUC. Difference = 0.0917 [0,025; 0,158],...

Conclusion

Results of our study showed superior sensitivity and specificity of DBT compared to FFDM for detection of malignant masses in women with dense breasts.Breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts can be improved byusing DBT.

Personal information and conflict of interest

A. Gurando; Kiev/UA - nothing to disclose T. Babkina; Kiev/UA - nothing to disclose T. Kozarenko; Kiev/UA - nothing to disclose D. Suleimenova; Nur-Sultan/KZ - nothing to disclose

References

1.Michell MJ,Iqbal A,Wasan RK, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.Clin Radiol. 2012;67(10):976-81. 2.Kopans DB. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis From Concept to Clinical Care. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;202:299-308. 3.Andersson I, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, 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.European Radiology. 2008;18(12): 2817-25. 4.Rafferty EA,Park JM,Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography...