Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers

被引:75
|
作者
Giger, Maryellen L. [1 ]
Inciardi, Marc F. [2 ]
Edwards, Alexandra [1 ]
Papaioannou, John [1 ]
Drukker, Karen [1 ]
Jiang, Yulei [1 ]
Brem, Rachel [3 ]
Brown, Jeremy Bancroft [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Dept Radiol, 5841 S Maryland Ave,MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Kansas City, KS 66103 USA
[3] George Washington Univ, Dept Radiol, Washington, DC USA
关键词
breast imaging; screening; ultrasound; whole-breast ultrasound; RISK; VARIABILITY; PERFORMANCE; MULTIREADER; POPULATION; MORTALITY; ROC; US;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.15.15367
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to assess and compare, in a reader study, radiologists' performance in the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone and using FFDM with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this multireader, multicase, sequential-design reader study, 17 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists interpreted a cancer-enriched set of FFDM and ABUS examinations. All imaging studies were of asymptomatic women with BI-RADS C or D breast density. Readers first interpreted FFDM alone and subsequently interpreted FFDM combined with ABUS. The analysis included 185 cases: 133 noncancers and 52 biopsy-proven cancers. Of the 52 cancer cases, the screening FFDM images were interpreted as showing BI-RADS 1 or 2 findings in 31 cases and BI-RADS 0 findings in 21 cases. For the cases interpreted as BI-RADS 0, a forced BI-RADS score was also given. Reader performance was compared in terms of AUC under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS. The AUC was 0.72 for FFDM alone and 0.82 for FFDM combined with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant 14% relative improvement in AUC (i.e., change in AUC = 0.10 [95% CI, 0.07-0.14]; p < 0.001). When a cutpoint of BI-RADS 3 was used, the sensitivity across all readers was 57.5% for FFDM alone and 74.1% for FFDM with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant increase in sensitivity (p < 0.001) (relative increase = 29%). Overall specificity was 78.1% for FFDM alone and 76.1% for FFDM with ABUS (p = 0.496). For only the mammography-negative cancers, the average AUC was 0.60 for FFDM alone and 0.75 for FFDM with ABUS, yielding a statistically significant 25% relative improvement in AUC with the addition of ABUS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Combining mammography with ABUS, compared with mammography alone, significantly improved readers' detection of breast cancers in women with dense breast tissue without substantially affecting specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:1341 / 1350
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Blume, Jeffrey D.
    Cormack, Jean B.
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    Lehrer, Daniel
    Bohm-Velez, Marcela
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Evans, W. Phil
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Larsen, Linda Hovanessian
    Barr, Richard G.
    Farria, Dione M.
    Marques, Helga S.
    Boparai, Karan
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18): : 2151 - 2163
  • [32] Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography versus mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer
    Tardivon, A.
    JOURNAL DE RADIOLOGIE, 2008, 89 (06): : 748 - 748
  • [33] Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts
    Sorin, Vera
    Yagil, Yael
    Yosepovich, Ady
    Shalmon, Anat
    Gotlieb, Michael
    Neiman, Osnat Halshtok
    Sklair-Levy, Miri
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 211 (05) : W267 - W274
  • [34] Ultrasound and Clinical Characteristics of False-negative Results in Mammography Screening of Dense Breasts
    Pu, Huan
    Peng, Juan
    Xu, Fenfen
    Liu, Na
    Wang, Fengjuan
    Huang, Xingyue
    Jia, Yan
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2020, 20 (04) : 317 - 325
  • [35] Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening
    Lee, Janie M.
    Partridge, Savannah C.
    Liao, Geraldine J.
    Hippe, Daniel S.
    Kim, Adrienne E.
    Lee, Christoph, I
    Rahbar, Habib
    Scheel, John R.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2019, 55 : 119 - 125
  • [36] Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer
    Nissan, Noam
    Comstock, Christopher E.
    Sevilimedu, Varadan
    Gluskin, Jill
    Mango, Victoria L.
    Hughes, Mary
    Ochoa-Albiztegui, R. Elena
    Sung, Janice S.
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    RADIOLOGY, 2024, 313 (01)
  • [37] Mammography screening and women with symptomatic breast cancer
    Philippe Autier
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 2013, 10 : 544 - 544
  • [38] Evaluation of Screening Whole-Breast Sonography as a Supplemental Tool in Conjunction With Mammography in Women With Dense Breasts
    Chae, Eun Young
    Kim, Hak Hee
    Cha, Joo Hee
    Shin, Hee Jung
    Kim, Hyunji
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (09) : 1573 - 1578
  • [39] A Prospective Study of Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening of Women with Dense Breasts in a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-based Practice
    Chough, Denise M.
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Bandos, Andriy, I
    Rathfon, Grace Y.
    Hakim, Christiane M.
    Lu, Amy H.
    Gizienski, Terri-Ann
    Ganott, Marie A.
    Gur, David
    JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2020, 2 (02) : 125 - 133
  • [40] Automated breast ultrasound: Supplemental screening for average-risk women with dense breasts
    Spear, Georgia Giakoumis
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 76 : 15 - 25