Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST).

PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone or combined with technologist-performed handheld screening ultrasound (US) in women with dense breasts. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant multicenter protocol in western Pennsylvania, 6,179 women consented to three rounds of annual screening, interpreted by two radiologist observers, and had appropriate follow-up. Primary analysis was based on first observer results. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 54.8 years (range, 40-75 years). Across 17,552 screens, there were 126 cancer events in 125 women (7.2/1,000; 95% CI, 5.9 to 8.4). In year 1, DBT-alone cancer yield was 5.0/1,000, and of DBT+US, 6.3/1,000, difference 1.3/1,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.1; P = .005). In years 2 + 3, DBT cancer yield was 4.9/1,000, and of DBT+US, 5.9/1,000, difference 1.0/1,000 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.5; P < .001). False-positive rate increased from 7.0% for DBT in year 1 to 11.5% for DBT+US and from 5.9% for DBT in year 2 + 3 to 9.7% for DBT+US (P < .001 for both). Nine cancers were seen only by double reading DBT and one by double reading US. Ten interval cancers (0.6/1,000 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9]) were identified. Despite reduction in specificity, addition of US improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with area under receiver operating characteristic curve increasing from 0.83 for DBT alone to 0.92 for DBT+US in year 1 (P = .01), with smaller improvements in subsequent years. Of 6,179 women, across all 3 years, 172/6,179 (2.8%) unique women had a false-positive biopsy because of DBT as did another 230/6,179 (3.7%) women because of US (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall added cancer detection rate of US screening after DBT was modest at 19/17,552 (1.1/1,000; CI, 0.5- to 1.6) screens but potentially overcomes substantial increases in false-positive recalls and benign biopsies.

Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of radioactive seed localization (RSL) versus wire localization using surgical margin size, reexcision and reoperation rates, specimen size, radiology resource utilization, and cosmesis as measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent RSL before segmental mastectomy from April 1, 2011, to March 1, 2012, for biopsy-proven cancer were selected. Each was matched using tumor size, type, and surgeon to a wire localization control case, resulting in 232 cases. Width of the closest surgical margin, reexcision rate, and reoperation rate were compared as were the ratios of tumor volume to initial surgical specimen volume and tumor volume to all surgically excised volume (including reexcisions and reoperations). Cosmetic outcome was analyzed by comparison of Harvard scores and specimen volume with breast volume. Radiology resource utilization was compared before and after RSL implementation. RESULTS: No significant differences between methods were found in closest surgical margin (RSL mean, 0.45 cm; wire localization mean, 0.45 cm; p=0.972), reexcision rate (RSL mean, 21.1%; wire localization mean, 26.3%; p=0.360), reoperation rate (RSL, 11.4%; wire localization, 12.7%; p=0.841), ratio of the tumor volume to initial surgical specimen volume (RSL mean, 0.027; wire localization mean, 0.028; p=0.886), ratio of the tumor volume to total volume resected (RSL mean, 0.024; wire localization mean, 0.024; p=0.997), or in clinical or computed cosmesis scores (clinical p=0.5; calculated p=0.060). There was a 34% increase in scheduled biopsy slot utilization, 50% savings in time spent scheduling, and a 4.1-day average decrease in biopsy wait time after RSL institution. CONCLUSION: RSL is an acceptable alternative to wire localization and offers significant improvements in workflow.