A Prospective Study of Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening of Women with Dense Breasts in a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-based Practice. Issue 2 (27th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: Journal of breast imaging. Volume 2:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 125
• Page End: 133
• Publication Date: 2020-02-27
• Subjects: breast cancer -- screening -- automated breast ultrasound -- tomosynthesis -- dense breasts; Breast -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.994490
• DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2631-6110

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To assess prospectively the interpretative performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as a supplemental screening after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or as a standalone screening of women with dense breast tissue. Methods: Under an IRB-approved protocol (written consent required), women with dense breasts prospectively underwent concurrent baseline DBT and ABUS screening. Examinations were independently evaluated, in opposite order, by two of seven Mammography Quality Standards Act–qualified radiologists, with the primary radiologist arbitrating disagreements and making clinical management recommendations. We report results for 1111 screening examinations (598 first year and 513 second year) for which all diagnostic workups are complete. Imaging was also retrospectively reviewed for all cancers. Statistical assessments used a 0.05 significance level and accounted for correlation between participants' examinations. Results: Of 1111 women screened, primary radiologists initially "recalled" based on DBT alone (6.6%, 73/1111, CI: 5.2%–8.2%), of which 20 were biopsied, yielding 6/8 total cancers. Automated breast ultrasound increased recalls overall to 14.4% (160/1111, CI: 12.4%–16.6%), with 27 total biopsies, yielding 1 additional cancer. Double reading of DBT alone increased the recall rate to 10.7% (119/1111), with 21 biopsies, with no improvement in cancer detection. Double reading ABUS increased the recall rate to 15.2% (169/1111, CI: 13.2%–17.5%) of women, of whom 22 were biopsied, yielding the detection of 7 cancers, including one seen only on double reading ABUS. Inter-radiologist agreement was similar for recall recommendations from DBT (κ = 0.24, CI: 0.14–0.34) and ABUS (κ = 0.23, CI: 0.15–0.32). Integrated assessments from both readers resulted in a recall rate of 15.1% (168/1111, CI: 13.1%–17.4%). Conclusion: Supplemental or standalone ABUS screening detected cancers not seen on DBT, but substantially increased noncancer recall rates. Graphical Abstract: