Patsy Whelehan1,2, Kulsam Ali1, Sarah Vinnicombe3, Graham Ball4, Julie Cox5, Paul Farry6, Maggie Jenkin7, Keith Lowry8, Stuart A McIntosh9, Rachel Nutt1, Rachel Oeppen10, Michael Reilly6, Michaela Stahnke10, Jim Steel7, Yee Ting Sim2, Violet Warwick1, Louise Wilkinson11, Dimitrios Zafeiris4, Andrew J Evans1. 1. School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Mailbox 4, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK. 2. NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK. 3. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK. 4. Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK & Intelligent OMICS Ltd, Nottingham, UK. 5. South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK. 6. Western Health and Social Care Trust, Londonderry, UK. 7. Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK. 8. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK. 9. Queen's University, Belfast, UK. 10. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 11. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has limited sensitivity for cancer in younger women with denser breasts. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can reduce the risk of cancer being obscured by overlying tissue. The primary study aim was to compare the sensitivity of FFDM, DBT and FFDM-plus-DBT in women under 60 years old with clinical suspicion of breast cancer. METHODS: This multicentre study recruited 446 patients from UK breast clinics. Participants underwent both standard FFDM and DBT. A blinded retrospective multireader study involving 12 readers and 300 mammograms (152 malignant and 148 benign cases) was conducted. RESULTS: Sensitivity for cancer was 86.6% with FFDM [95% CI (85.2-88.0%)], 89.1% with DBT [95% CI (88.2-90%)], and 91.7% with FFDM+DBT [95% CI (90.7-92.6%)]. In the densest breasts, the maximum sensitivity increment with FFDM +DBT over FFDM alone was 10.3%, varying by density measurement method. Overall specificity was 81.4% with FFDM [95% CI (80.5-82.3%)], 84.6% with DBT [95% CI (83.9-85.3%)], and 79.6% with FFDM +DBT [95% CI (79.0-80.2%)]. No differences were detected in accuracy of tumour measurement in unifocal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Where available, DBT merits first-line use in the under 60 age group in symptomatic breast clinics, particularly in women known to have very dense breasts. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is one of very few to address the accuracy of DBT in symptomatic rather than screening patients. It quantifies the diagnostic gains of DBT in direct comparison with standard digital mammography, supporting informed decisions on appropriate use of DBT in this population.
OBJECTIVE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has limited sensitivity for cancer in younger women with denser breasts. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can reduce the risk of cancer being obscured by overlying tissue. The primary study aim was to compare the sensitivity of FFDM, DBT and FFDM-plus-DBT in women under 60 years old with clinical suspicion of breast cancer. METHODS: This multicentre study recruited 446 patients from UK breast clinics. Participants underwent both standard FFDM and DBT. A blinded retrospective multireader study involving 12 readers and 300 mammograms (152 malignant and 148 benign cases) was conducted. RESULTS: Sensitivity for cancer was 86.6% with FFDM [95% CI (85.2-88.0%)], 89.1% with DBT [95% CI (88.2-90%)], and 91.7% with FFDM+DBT [95% CI (90.7-92.6%)]. In the densest breasts, the maximum sensitivity increment with FFDM +DBT over FFDM alone was 10.3%, varying by density measurement method. Overall specificity was 81.4% with FFDM [95% CI (80.5-82.3%)], 84.6% with DBT [95% CI (83.9-85.3%)], and 79.6% with FFDM +DBT [95% CI (79.0-80.2%)]. No differences were detected in accuracy of tumour measurement in unifocal cases. CONCLUSIONS: Where available, DBT merits first-line use in the under 60 age group in symptomatic breast clinics, particularly in women known to have very dense breasts. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is one of very few to address the accuracy of DBT in symptomatic rather than screening patients. It quantifies the diagnostic gains of DBT in direct comparison with standard digital mammography, supporting informed decisions on appropriate use of DBT in this population.
Authors: Maha H Helal; Sahar M Mansour; Mai Zaglol; Lamia A Salaleldin; Omniya M Nada; Marwa A Haggag Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: M Luke Marinovich; Daniela Bernardi; Petra Macaskill; Anna Ventriglia; Vincenzo Sabatino; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Breast Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Lothar Häberle; Peter A Fasching; Barbara Brehm; Katharina Heusinger; Sebastian M Jud; Christian R Loehberg; Carolin C Hack; Caroline Preuss; Michael P Lux; Arndt Hartmann; Celine M Vachon; Martina Meier-Meitinger; Michael Uder; Matthias W Beckmann; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J Mercier; F Kwiatkowski; C Abrial; V Boussion; V Dieu-de Fraissinette; W Marraoui; V Petitcolin-Bidet; S Lemery Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 4.026