Imaging characteristics of interval cancers detected on Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).

OBJECTIVE: To compare imaging features of interval cancers detected in patients screened with full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS/METHODS: This retrospective observational study consisted of female patients undergoing screening DM or FFDM at an academic medical center and two outpatient imaging facilities between January 2012 and June 2017. A natural language processing algorithm queried breast imaging reports for breast density and BI-RADS category. This was cross-referenced to an institutional breast cancer registry to identify interval cancers. Retrospective consensus review of the cases was done to categorize imaging features of interval cancers on FFDM vs DBT. RESULTS: The rate of interval cancers was comparable in patients screened with FFDM (30/39793) and DBT (29/32180) (p = 0.58). There was no significant difference in the rate, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. The most common mammographic features on diagnostic imaging across both groups was the presence of a mass (13/47). Almost equally common was negative diagnostic mammogram with mass detected only on ultrasound (11/47). The rate of interval cancers detected by high-risk surveillance breast MRI was increased in patients who previously had screening with DBT relative to those who had screening with FFDM (p = 0.0419). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in rate of detection, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. However, across both cohorts, the most common features on diagnostic mammogram were either the presence of a mass or a negative mammogram.

Impact of Electronic Procedural Protocoling on the Timeliness of Pre-operative Breast Localization Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a new electronic procedural protocol on start times of pre-operative breast localization procedures. METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant, Institutional Review Board-exempted, quality improvement initiative was performed at a large tertiary academic center. In May 2018, an electronic version of the pre-procedure protocol for breast localizations was created within the electronic health record; prior to this time, the protocol was completed manually on a paper form. Mean time between: (1) appointment time and procedure start time, (2) procedure begin-to-end time, and (3) arrival to appointment time were compared for all female patients undergoing pre-operative breast localization procedures during 4-month periods pre-implementation of the electronic procedural protocol (January-April 2018), and post-implementation (June-September 2018), excluding the May 2018 implementation month. Statistical analysis was done by two tailed t-test and statistical process control charting. RESULTS: Pre-implementation, 427 procedures were performed, and post-implementation 409 procedures were performed. Three pre-implementation cases performed more than 3 hours prior to appointment time were excluded (presumed to be rescheduled cases). Mean time between appointment time and procedure start time decreased from 2.7 minutes after to 5.6 minutes before appointment start time, an 8.3-minute improvement (P = 0.0001), with sustained improvement by statistical process control analysis. Mean time for procedure length increased by 4.7 minutes (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in mean time of patient arrival to appointment time pre- and post-implementation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an electronic protocol process for pre-operative breast localizations was associated with a significant and sustained reduction in time between appointment time and procedure start time.

Ultrasound visibility of select breast biopsy markers for targeted axillary node localization following neoadjuvant treatment: simulation using animal tissue models.

PURPOSE: To compare ultrasound visibility of selected biopsy markers in animal tissue models simulating axillary echotexture. METHODS: Four breast biopsy markers were selected based on size, shape, and composition and compared to an institutional standard for testing in beef steak and pork loin phantoms. BD® UltraCor™ Twirl™; Hologic® Tumark® Professional series Q, Vision, and X; and BD® UltraClip™ Dual Trigger wing-shaped (institutional standard) biopsy markers were deployed at superficial (0-2.0 cm) and deep (2.1-4.0 cm) depths in the animal models. An animal model without a biopsy marker served as control. Four participating breast imagers blinded to marker shape and location assessed ultrasound visibility of each biopsy marker using a handheld 5-12 MHz linear array transducer with a 4-point grading system (0, not visible; 1, unsure if visible; 2, visible with difficulty; 3, definite visibility). Each breast imager was asked to select the three most easily visualized biopsy markers. RESULTS: Total visibility scores with the four-point grading system demonstrate highest score for the Twirl™ (48/48 points), followed by the Tumark® Q (42/48) and Tumark® Vision (41/48) biopsy markers. Overall individual accuracy scores across all biopsy marker types ranged from 83.3 to 95.8%. Visibility scores based on subjective radiologist assessment also demonstrate the highest vote for the Twirl™ (11), followed by the Tumark® Vision (7) and Tumark® Q (6) biopsy markers. The wing-shaped biopsy marker had the lowest visibility and voter score. CONCLUSION: The Twirl™ followed by the Tumark® Q and Vision biopsy markers demonstrates the highest visibility scores using a four-point grading system and by radiologist vote.

Comparing Tumor Characteristics and Rates of Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs), tumor types, and characteristics between screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a matched patient population in a large academic breast imaging practice with mixed DBT and FFDM technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective study, we reviewed consecutive screening FFDM and DBT examinations performed between October 2012 and September 2014. To control for nonrandomized selection of FFDM versus DBT examinations, we applied propensity score matching on the basis of patient age, imaging site, and prior imaging findings. An institutional breast cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. CDR and tumor type, grade, receptor, nodal status, and size were compared between matched FFDM and DBT groups. RESULTS. Sixty-one cancers were detected in the matched screening cohort of DBT (n = 9817) and FFDM (n = 14,180) examinations. CDR was higher with DBT than with FFDM for invasive cancers (2.8 vs 1.3, p = 0.01), minimal cancers (2.4 vs 1.2, p = 0.03), estrogen receptor-positive invasive cancers (2.6 vs 1.1, p = 0.01), and node-negative invasive cancers (2.3 vs 1.1, p = 0.02.), respectively. The ratio of screen-detected invasive cancers to ductal carcinoma in situ on DBT (3.0) was not significantly different from that on FFDM (2.6) (p = 0.79). CONCLUSION. DBT results in an overall increase in CDR irrespective of the tumor type, size, or grade of cancer.