The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a three-dimensional mammography technique with the potential to improve accuracy by improving differentiation between malignant and non-malignant lesions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of DBT in conjunction with two-dimensional (2D) mammography or synthetic 2D mammography, against standard 2D mammography and to determine if DBT improves the accuracy of detection of different types of lesions. STUDY POPULATION: Women (aged 47-73 years) recalled for further assessment after routine breast screening and women (aged 40-49 years) with moderate/high of risk of developing breast cancer attending annual mammography screening were recruited after giving written informed consent. INTERVENTION: All participants underwent a two-view 2D mammography of both breasts and two-view DBT imaging. Image-processing software generated a synthetic 2D mammogram from the DBT data sets. RETROSPECTIVE READING STUDY: In an independent blinded retrospective study, readers reviewed (1) 2D or (2) 2D + DBT or (3) synthetic 2D + DBT images for each case without access to original screening mammograms or prior examinations. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for each reading arm and by subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Data were available for 7060 subjects comprising 6020 (1158 cancers) assessment cases and 1040 (two cancers) family history screening cases. Overall sensitivity was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85% to 89%] for 2D only, 89% (95% CI 87% to 91%) for 2D + DBT and 88% (95% CI 86% to 90%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. The difference in sensitivity between 2D and 2D + DBT was of borderline significance (p = 0.07) and for synthetic 2D + DBT there was no significant difference (p = 0.6). Specificity was 58% (95% CI 56% to 60%) for 2D, 69% (95% CI 67% to 71%) for 2D + DBT and 71% (95% CI 69% to 73%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. Specificity was significantly higher in both DBT reading arms for all subgroups of age, density and dominant radiological feature (p < 0.001 all cases). In all reading arms, specificity tended to be lower for microcalcifications and higher for distortion/asymmetry. Comparing 2D + DBT to 2D alone, sensitivity was significantly higher: 93% versus 86% (p < 0.001) for invasive tumours of size 11-20 mm. Similarly, for breast density 50% or more, sensitivities were 93% versus 86% (p = 0.03); for grade 2 invasive tumours, sensitivities were 91% versus 87% (p = 0.01); where the dominant radiological feature was a mass, sensitivities were 92% and 89% (p = 0.04) For synthetic 2D + DBT, there was significantly (p = 0.006) higher sensitivity than 2D alone in invasive cancers of size 11-20 mm, with a sensitivity of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: The specificity of DBT and 2D was better than 2D alone but there was only marginal improvement in sensitivity. The performance of synthetic 2D appeared to be comparable to standard 2D. If these results were observed with screening cases, DBT and 2D mammography could benefit to the screening programme by reducing the number of women recalled unnecessarily, especially if a synthetic 2D mammogram were used to minimise radiation exposure. Further research is required into the feasibility of implementing DBT in a screening setting, prognostic modelling on outcomes and mortality, and comparison of 2D and synthetic 2D for different lesion types. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73467396. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme – a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(4). © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Gilbert et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK

Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Rationale and Objectives: A linear array of carbon nanotube-enabled x-ray sources allows for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis (sDBT), during which projection views are collected without the need to move the x-ray tube. This work presents our initial clinical experience with a first-generation sDBT device. Materials and Methods: Following informed consent, women with a “suspicious abnormality” (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4), discovered by digital mammography and awaiting biopsy, were also imaged by the first generation sDBT. Four radiologists participated in this paired-image study, completing questionnaires while interpreting the mammograms and sDBT image stacks. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to measure reader performance (likelihood of correctly identifying malignancy based on pathology as ground truth), while a multivariate analysis assessed preference, as readers compared one modality to the next when interpreting diagnostically important image features. Results: Findings from 43 women were available for analysis, in whom 12 cases of malignancy were identified by pathology. The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for sDBT than mammography for all breast density categories and breast thicknesses. Additionally, readers preferred sDBT over mammography when evaluating mass margins and shape, architectural distortion, and asymmetry, but preferred mammography when characterizing microcalcifications. Conclusion: Readers preferred sDBT over mammography when interpreting soft-tissue breast features and were diagnostically more accurate using images generated by sDBT in a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 population. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to improve microcalcification conspicuity, which is guiding both technological and image-processing design changes in future sDBT devices

Advancing the Clinical Potential of Carbon Nanotube-enabled stationary 3D Mammography

Scope and purpose. 3D imaging has revolutionized medicine. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), also recognized as 3D mammography, is a relatively recent example. stationary DBT (sDBT) is an experimental technology in which the single moving x-ray source of conventional DBT has been replaced by a fixed array of carbon nanotube (CNT)-enabled sources. Given the potential for a higher spatial and temporal resolution compared to commercially-available, moving-source DBT devices, it was hypothesized that sDBT would provide a valuable tool for breast imaging. As such, the purpose of this work was to explore the clinical potential of sDBT. To accomplish this purpose, three broad Aims were set forth: (1) study the challenges of scatter and artifact with sDBT, (2) assess the performance of sDBT relative to standard mammographic screening approaches, and (3) develop a synthetic mammography capability for sDBT. Throughout the work, developing image processing approaches to maximize the diagnostic value of the information presented to readers remained a specific goal. Data sources and methodology. Sitting at the intersection of development and clinical application, this work involved both basic experimentation and human study. Quantitative measures of image quality as well as reader preference and accuracy were used to assess the performance of sDBT. These studies imaged breast-mimicking phantoms, lumpectomy specimens, and human subjects on IRB-approved study protocols, often using standard 2D and conventional 3D mammography for reference. Key findings. Characterizing scatter and artifact allowed the development of new processing approaches to improve image quality. Additionally, comparing the performance of sDBT to standard breast imaging technologies helped identify opportunities for improvement through processing. This line of research culminated in the incorporation of a synthetic mammography capability into sDBT, yielding images that have the potential to improve the diagnostic value of sDBT. Implications. This work advanced the evolution of CNT-enabled sDBT toward a viable clinical tool by incorporating key image processing functionality and characterizing the performance of sDBT relative to standard breast imaging techniques. The findings confirmed the clinical utility of sDBT while also suggesting promising paths for future research and development with this unique approach to breast imaging.Doctor of Philosoph

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis : - the future screening tool for breast cancer?

Bakgrunn: Brystkreft er den vanligste kreftformen blant kvinner og en av de hyppigste årsakene til kreftdødsfall i Norge og globalt. Målsettingen med mammografiscreening er å oppdage brystkreft i et tidlig stadium og redusere dødeligheten av sykdommen. Studier har vist høyere deteksjon av screeningoppdagede krefttilfeller med digital brysttomosyntese som inkluderer ~200-250 bilder sammenlignet med standard digital mammografi (DM) med fire bilder. Vi utførte en randomisert kontrollert studie (RCT), Tomosyntese-studien i Bergen (To-Be1). Målsettingen med studien var å sammenligne tidligindikatorer i screening ved bruk av digital brysttomosyntese i kombinasjon med syntetiske 2D-bilder (DBT) versus standard DM. Avhandlingen inkluderer tre studier med følgende mål: Studie 1: Å sammenligne lesetid, stråledose, konsensus og tilbakekalling ved bruk av DBT og DM etter det første året av To-Be1. Studie 2: Å sammenligne tilbakekalling, falske positive screeningsresultater og screeningoppdaget kreft for kvinner med ulik mammografisk tetthet målt automatisk (Volpara tetthetsgrad, VDG 1-4) og med ulike screeningteknikker (DBT versus DM). Studie 3: Å undersøke fordeling av mammografiske funn hos kvinner tilbakekalt etter screening med DBT versus DM og analysere sammenhenger mellom mammografiske funn og det endelige resultatet av screeningundersøkelsen. Metode: Alle kvinner som deltok i screening utført i Bergen i løpet av 2016-2017 som en del av Mammografiprogrammet (n=32 976) ble invitert til å delta i To-Be1. Totalt aksepterte 89,3 % av kvinnene invitasjonen og ble randomisert til DBT eller DM. Etter uavhengig dobbelttyding med konsensus ble resultater etter DBT sammenlignet med DM. Mammografisk tetthet ble oppgitt som VDG 1-4, som er analog til kategoriene i BI-RADS´ 5. utgave. Radiologene klassifiserte mammografiske funn hos etterinnkalte kvinner etter en modifisert BI-RADS skala. Vi brukte deskriptive analyser og t-test for å sammenligne gjennomsnittsverdier, samt kji-kvadrat-test med tilhørende 95% konfidensintervall (KI) for å sammenligne kategorier. Log-binominale regresjonsmodeller ble brukt for å estimere relativ risiko. En p-verdi lavere enn 0,05 ble definert som statistisk signifikant. Vi brukte statistikkprogrammet STATA. Resultater: Studie 1: Gjennomsnittlig lesetid var 1:11 min:sek for DBT og 0:41 min:sek for DM i det første året av To-Be1. Det var ingen statistiske forskjeller i gjennomsnittlig stråledose for noen av tetthetskategoriene for DBT (2,96 mGy) versus DM (2,95 mGy). Tilbakekallingen var 3,0 % for DBT og 3,6 % for DM etter det første året med To-Be1. Studie 2: Etterundersøkelsesraten for kvinner med VDG 1 var 2,1% for DBT og 3,3% for DM, mens den var 3,2% for DBT og 4,3% for DM for de med VDG 2. Raten av falske positive screening resultater var 1,6% for DBT og 2,8% for DM for kvinner med VDG 1. For kvinner med VDG 2 var den 2,4% for DBT og 3,6 for DM. Ingen statistiske forskjeller i screeningoppdaget kreft ble funnet mellom DBT og DM for noen av tetthetskategoriene. Justert relativ risiko for tilbakekalling, falskt positivt screeningsresultat og screeningoppdaget kreft økte med VDG i DBT, mens det ikke ble funnet forskjeller i DM. Studie 3: Studien inkluderte 182 screeningdetekterte krefttilfeller (n=95 for DBT og n=87 for DM). Blant disse var 36,8% spikulerte masser for DBT mens det var 18,4% for DM. Kalk var det hyppigste mammografiske funnet for brystkrefttilfeller for de som var screenet med DM (23%). For DBT var andelen på 13,7%. Asymmetri, uskarp og skjult masse var mindre hyppig hos kvinner med et falsk positiv screening resultat etter screening med DBT versus DM. Konklusjon: Resultater fra To-Be1 indikerte at DBT var minst like god som DM når det gjelder etterundersøkelser og deteksjon av brystkreft, som betyr at DBT er trygt å bruke i screening. DBT var bedre egnet enn DM for kvinner med VDG 1 og 2 med hensyn til etterundersøkelsesrate og falske positive, mens deteksjon av brystkreft ikke var forskjellig. Det tok lengre tid å lese DBT enn DM bilder, og konsensus tok lengre tid med DBT. Mer kunnskap om forskjeller i mammografiske funn og sammenheng med screeningsresultater for DBT versus DM kan bidra til å ytterligere forbedre fordelene med DBT som et screeningverktøy.Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in Norway and globally. Mammographic screening aims for early detection of breast cancer and reduced mortality from the disease. Studies have shown higher rates of screen-detected cancers for digital breast tomosynthesis including ~200-250 images compared to standard digital mammography (DM) including four images. We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the Tomosynthesis trial in Bergen (To-Be1), were the aim was to compare early performance measures for digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesised 2D images (DBT) versus DM in screening. This thesis includes three studies with the following aims: Study 1: To compare preliminary results of reading time, radiation dose, consensus and recall for DBT and DM after the first year of To-Be1. Study 2: To compare recall, false positive screening results and screen-detected cancers by automated mammographic density (Volpara density grade, VDG 1-4) and screening technique (DBT versus DM). Study 3: To investigate distribution of mammographic features in women recalled after screening with DBT versus DM and assess associations between mammographic features and final outcome of the screening examination. Method: All women who attended the screening unit in Bergen during 2016-2017 as part of BreastScreen Norway (n=32 976) were invited to participate in To-Be1. In total, 89.3% of the women accepted the invitation and were randomized to undergo either DBT or DM. After independent double reading with consensus, results for DBT were compared with DM. Mammographic density were described by VDG 1-4 which are analogue to the categories in the BI-RADS 5th edition. The radiologists classified the mammographic features of recalled women according to a modified BI-RADS scale. We presented descriptive results and used t-tests to test for means, and chi-squared tests for categories with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Log-binominal regression models were used to estimate relative risks. A p-value lower than 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. We used STATA software. Results: Study 1: Mean reading time was 1:11 min:sec for DBT versus 0:41 min:sec for DM in the first year of To-Be1. Mean glandular dose did not differ statistically for women screened with DBT (2.96 mGy) versus DM (2.95 mGy). Recall was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM in the first year of To-Be1. Study 2: Recall rate for women with VDG 1 was 2.1% for DBT and 3.3% for DM, while it was 3.2% for DBT and 4.3% for DM for women with VDG 2. The rate of false positive screening results was 1.6% for DBT and 2.8% for DM for women with VDG 1. For women with VDG 2 it was 2.4% for DBT and 3.6% for DM. No statistical difference in screen-detected cancers was observed between DBT and DM in any density categories. Adjusted relative risk of recall, false positives and screen-detected cancers increased with VDG for DBT. No difference was found for DM. Study 3: The study included 182 screen detected cancers (n=95 DBT and n= 87 DM). 36.8% of those detected with DBT was spiculated mass, while it was 18.4 % for DM. Calcifications was the most frequent feature for breast cancer among those screened with DM (23.0%), which did not differ statistically from the 13.7% for DBT. Asymmetry, indistinct and obscured mass was less frequent in women with a false positive screening result after screening with DBT versus DM. Conclusion: Results from To-Be1 indicated DBT to be as least as good as DM in terms of recall and cancer detection, which means that DBT is safe for the women. DBT was superior to DM in women with VDG 1 and 2 (lower recall, fewer false positives, no difference in cancer detection). However, time spent on initial screen reading and on consensus was longer for DBT compared with DM. More knowledge of the differences in distribution of mammographic features and their association with screening outcome, might contribute to further improve the benefits of DBT as a screening tool for breast cancer.Doktorgradsavhandlin

Image reconstruction and processing for stationary digital tomosynthesis systems

Digital tomosynthesis (DTS) is an emerging x-ray imaging technique for disease and cancer screening. DTS takes a small number of x-ray projections to generate pseudo-3D images, it has a lower radiation and a lower cost compared to the Computed Tomography (CT) and an improved diagnostic accuracy compared to the 2D radiography. Our research group has developed a carbon nanotube (CNT) based x-ray source. This technology enables packing multiple x-ray sources into one single x-ray source array. Based on this technology, our group built several stationary digital tomosynthesis (s-DTS) systems, which have a faster scanning time and no source motion blur. One critical step in both tomosynthesis and CT is image reconstruction, which generates a 3D image from the 2D measurement. For tomosynthesis, the conventional reconstruction method runs fast but fails in image quality. A better iterative method exists, however, it is too time-consuming to be used in clinics. The goal of this work is to develop fast iterative image reconstruction algorithm and other image processing techniques for the stationary digital tomosynthesis system, improving the image quality affected by the hardware limitation. Fast iterative reconstruction algorithm, named adapted fan volume reconstruction (AFVR), was developed for the s-DTS. AFVR is shown to be an order of magnitude faster than the current iterative reconstruction algorithms and produces better images over the classical filtered back projection (FBP) method. AFVR was implemented for the stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system (s-DBT), the stationary digital chest tomosynthesis system (s-DCT) and the stationary intraoral dental tomosynthesis system (s-IOT). Next, scatter correction technique for stationary digital tomosynthesis was investigated. A new algorithm for estimating scatter profile was developed, which has been shown to improve the image quality substantially. Finally, the quantitative imaging was investigated, where the s-DCT system was used to assess the coronary artery calcium score.Doctor of Philosoph