Multireader Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrafast Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has limited accessibility due to high costs of breast MRI. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI can be acquired within 2 minutes. We aimed to assess whether screening performance of breast radiologist using an ultrafast breast MRI-only screening protocol is as good as performance using a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol (FDP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study, and waived the need for informed consent. Between January 2012 and June 2014, 1791 consecutive breast cancer screening examinations from 954 women with a lifetime risk of more than 20% were prospectively collected. All women were scanned using a 3 T protocol interleaving ultrafast breast MRI acquisitions in a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol consisting of standard dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging, and T2-weighted imaging. Subsequently, a case set was created including all biopsied screen-detected lesions in this period (31 malignant and 54 benign) and 116 randomly selected normal cases with more than 2 years of follow-up. Prior examinations were included when available. Seven dedicated breast radiologists read all 201 examinations and 153 available priors once using the FDP and once using ultrafast breast MRI only in 2 counterbalanced and crossed-over reading sessions. RESULTS: For reading the FDP versus ultrafast breast MRI alone, sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.90) versus 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) (P = 0.50), specificity was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) versus 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) (P = 0.002), positive predictive value was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45) versus 0.45 (95% CI, 0.41-0.50) (P = 0.14), and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) versus 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) (P = 0.83). Ultrafast breast MRI reading was 22.8% faster than reading FDP (P < 0.001). Interreader agreement is significantly better for ultrafast breast MRI (κ = 0.730; 95% CI, 0.699-0.761) than for the FDP (κ = 0.665; 95% CI, 0.633-0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI screening using only an ultrafast breast MRI protocol is noninferior to screening with an FDP and may result in significantly higher screening specificity and shorter reading time.

Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of computer-aided-detection (CAD) software for automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) on reading time (RT) and performance in screening for breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Unilateral ABUS examinations of 120 women with dense breasts were randomly selected from a multi-institutional archive of cases including 30 malignant (20/30 mammography-occult), 30 benign, and 60 normal cases with histopathological verification or ≥ 2 years of negative follow-up. Eight radiologists read once with (CAD-ABUS) and once without CAD (ABUS) with > 8 weeks between reading sessions. Readers provided a BI-RADS score and a level of suspiciousness (0-100). RT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and area under the curve (AUC) were compared. RESULTS: Average RT was significantly shorter using CAD-ABUS (133.4 s/case, 95% CI 129.2-137.6) compared with ABUS (158.3 s/case, 95% CI 153.0-163.3) (p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 0.84 for CAD-ABUS (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and ABUS (95% CI 0.78-0.88) (p = 0.90). Three out of eight readers showed significantly higher specificity using CAD. Pooled specificity (0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.75 vs. 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, p = 0.08) and PPV (0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55 vs. 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.49, p = 0.07) were higher in CAD-ABUS vs. ABUS, respectively, albeit not significantly. Pooled AUC for CAD-ABUS was comparable with ABUS (0.82 vs. 0.83, p = 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: CAD software for ABUS may decrease the time needed to screen for breast cancer without compromising the screening performance of radiologists. KEY POINTS: • ABUS with CAD software may speed up reading time without compromising radiologists' accuracy. • CAD software for ABUS might prevent non-detection of malignant breast lesions by radiologists. • Radiologists reading ABUS with CAD software might improve their specificity without losing sensitivity.