METHODS: 3317 raw digital mammograms were processed with Volpara(®) (Matakina Technology Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand) to obtain fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV), breast volume (BV) and VBD. Errors in parameters including CBT, kVp, filter thickness and mAs were simulated by varying them in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) tags of the images up to ±10% of the original values. Errors in detector gain and offset were simulated by varying them in the Volpara configuration file up to ±10% from their default values. For image noise, Gaussian noise was generated and introduced into the original images.
RESULTS: Errors in filter thickness, mAs, detector gain and offset had limited effects on FGV, BV and VBD. Significant effects in VBD were observed when CBT, kVp, detector offset and image noise were varied (p
AIMS: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality for DSPM and FFDM using a grading scale based on previously published articles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative diagnostic study was done for 5-month duration at the Breast Clinic. The system used was the Lorad Selenia FFDM system and the Mammomat 3000 Nova DSPM system. The craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections were done on both breast on 58 asymptomatic women using both DSPM and FFDM. The mammograms were evaluated for eight criteria of image quality: Tissue coverage, compression, exposure, contrast, resolution, noise, artifact, and sharpness by two independent radiologists.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and Weighted Kappa.
RESULTS: FFDM was rated significantly better (P < 0.05) for five aspects: Tissue coverage, compression, contrast, exposure, and resolution and equal to DSPM for sharpness, noise, and artifact.
CONCLUSION: FFDM was superior in five aspects and equal to DSPM for three aspects of image quality.
METHODS: We used digitised mammograms for 371 monozygotic twin pairs, aged 40-70 years without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of mammography, from the Australian Mammographic Density Twins and Sisters Study. We generated normalised, age-adjusted, and standardised risk scores based on textures using the Cirrus algorithm and on three spatially independent dense areas defined by increasing brightness threshold: light areas, bright areas, and brightest areas. Causal inference was made using the Inference about Causation from Examination of FAmilial CONfounding (ICE FALCON) method.
RESULTS: The mammogram risk scores were correlated within twin pairs and with each other (r = 0.22-0.81; all P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had 3D-ABUS between January 2014 and January 2022 for screening were included in this retrospective study. The images were reported by 1 of 6 breast radiologists based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS). The 3D-ABUS was reviewed together with the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection yield were calculated.
RESULTS: In total, 3616 studies were performed in 1555 women (breast density C/D 95.5% (n = 3455/3616), breast density A/B 4.0% (n = 144/3616), density unknown (0.5% (n = 17/3616)). A total of 259 lesions were detected on 3D-ABUS (87.6% (n = 227/259) masses and 12.4% (n = 32/259) architectural distortions). The recall rate was 5.2% (n = 188/3616) (CI 4.5-6.0%) with only 36.7% (n = 69/188) cases recalled to another date. Moreover, recall declined over time. There were 3.4% (n = 123/3616) biopsies performed, with 52.8% (n = 65/123) biopsies due to an abnormality detected in 3D-ABUS alone. Ten of 65 lesions were malignant, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 15.4% (n = 10/65) (CI 7.6-26.5%)). The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS is 2.77 per 1000 screening tests (CI 1.30-5.1).
CONCLUSION: The cancer detection yield of 3D-ABUS in a real clinical screening setting is comparable to the results reported in previous prospective studies, with lower recall and biopsy rates. 3D-ABUS also may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 3D automated breast ultrasound screening performance in a clinical setting is comparable to previous prospective studies, with better recall and biopsy rates.
KEY POINTS: • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a reliable and reproducible tool that provides a three-dimensional representation of the breast and allows image visualisation in axial, coronal and sagittal. • The diagnostic performance of 3D automated breast ultrasound in a real clinical setting is comparable to its performance in previously published prospective studies, with improved recall and biopsy rates. • 3D automated breast ultrasound is a useful adjunct to mammography in dense breasts and may be an alternative for screening when mammography is not possible or declined.