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
  • [41] Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study
    Skaane, Per
    Gullien, Randi
    Eben, Ellen B.
    Sandhaug, Merete
    Schulz-Wendtland, Ruediger
    Stoeblen, Frank
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2015, 56 (04) : 404 - 412
  • [42] Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    Thaler, Kylie
    Chapman, Andrea
    Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Angela
    Berzaczy, Dominik
    Van Noord, Megan G.
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2013, (04):
  • [43] Cost-Effectiveness of MR-Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Extremely Dense Breasts After Two Rounds of Screening
    Tollens, Fabian
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    Dietzel, Matthias
    Schnitzer, Moritz L.
    Kunz, Wolfgang G.
    Rink, Johann
    Ruebenthaler, Johannes
    Froelich, Matthias F.
    Kaiser, Clemens G.
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [44] Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    Glechner, Anna
    Wagner, Gernot
    Mitus, Jerzy W.
    Teufer, Birgit
    Klerings, Irma
    Bock, Nina
    Grillich, Ludwig
    Berzaczy, Dominik
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (03):
  • [45] Molecular breast imaging (MBI) dose lowered to match mammography: Potential for screening dense breasts for cancer
    Hugg, James
    O'Connor, Michael
    Hruska, Carrie
    Weinmann, Amanda
    DiFilippo, Frank
    Patt, Bradley
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2012, 53
  • [46] Comparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breasts
    Philadelpho, Fernanda
    Gregorio Calas, Maria Julia
    Coutinho Carneiro, Gracy de Almeida
    Silveira, Isabela Cunha
    Ribeiro Vaz, Andreia Brandao
    Coelho Nogueira, Adriana Maria
    Bergmann, Anke
    Proenca Lobo Lopes, Flavia Paiva
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GINECOLOGIA E OBSTETRICIA, 2021, 43 (03): : 190 - 199
  • [47] Comparison of Mammography and Mammography with Supplemental Whole-Breast US Tomography for Cancer Detection in Patients with Dense Breasts
    Yamashita, Mary W.
    Larsen, Linda H.
    Perez, Jeremiah
    Edwards, Alexandra, V
    Papaioannou, John
    Jiang, Yulei
    RADIOLOGY, 2024, 311 (03)
  • [48] MRI, ultrasound, and digital mammography for breast cancer screening in women at high risk
    Sumkin, JH
    Ganott, MA
    Hakim, CM
    Hardesty, LA
    Poller, WR
    Rubenstein, WS
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 184 (04) : 36 - 36
  • [49] Mammography/ultrasound in women with an increased risk for breast cancer
    Zonderland, H. M.
    Brekelmans, C. T. M.
    de Bock, G. H.
    EJC SUPPLEMENTS, 2004, 2 (03): : 53 - 53
  • [50] Supplemental Screening With Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Dense Breasts: Comparing Notification Methods and Screening Behaviors
    Aripoli, Allison
    Fountain, Kelly
    Winblad, Onalisa
    Gatewood, Jason
    Hill, Jacqueline
    Wick, Jo A.
    Inciardi, Marc
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (01) : W22 - W28