RC315-16

Comparing the Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM), Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Whole Breast Ultrasound (WBUS) in the Initial Staging Evaluation of Breast Cancer: Interim Results of a Prospective Study

Tuesday, Dec. 1 11:40AM - 11:50AM Location: Arie Crown Theater



Rosalind P. Candelaria, MD, Houston, TX (Presenter) Nothing to Disclose
Monica L. Huang, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Beatriz E. Adrada, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Elsa M. Arribas, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Marion E. Scoggins, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Wei T. Yang, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Researcher, Hologic, Inc
Jennifer G. Schopp, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Mark J. Dryden, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
H. Carisa Le-Petross, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Tanya W. Moseley, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Gary J. Whitman, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Book contract, Cambridge University Press
Gaiane M. Rauch, MD, PhD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Lumarie Santiago, MD, Houston, TX (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
PURPOSE

To determine the incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR) of FFDM+DBT and FFDM+DBT+WBUS when compared to FFDM alone in the local staging of patients with recently diagnosed invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) and patients with mammograms and/or ultrasound highly suspicious for invasive breast carcinoma (BI-RADS 5).

METHOD AND MATERIALS

This IRB-approved, prospective study was performed in a single, large tertiary cancer center. Informed written consent was obtained. We enrolled the first 100 women who were referred to our center from 12/2014-3/2015, met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate. All women had FFDM with DBT followed by WBUS; FFDM interpretation occurred blinded to DBT images. WBUS was performed with knowledge of FFDM/DBT results. Suspicious lesions on FFDM, DBT or WBUS farthest apart in the breast were biopsied to determine disease extent and to establish multifocality and/or multicentricity. Gold standard for diagnosis of malignancy was histopathology from needle biopsy and/or surgery. A separate surgical plan was recorded for each patient based on findings from FFDM alone, FFDM+DBT and FFDM+DBT+WBUS. In patients who did not have mastectomy, true negatives were defined by negative clinical and imaging assessment at 12-month follow-up (pending).

RESULTS

Median patient age was 54 years, range 26-82. Mean index tumor size was 2.1 cm, range 0.4-15. Mean satellite tumor size was 1.2 cm, range 0.4-4.2. Breast tissue density among the study group was predominantly fatty (1%), scattered fibroglandular (26%), heterogeneously dense (70%) and extremely dense (3%). ICDR of FFDM+DBT when compared to FFDM alone was 1% (exact 95% CI:0.02%-5.4%) in the ipsilateral and 0% (exact 95% CI:0%-5.7%) in the contralateral breast. ICDR of FFDM+DBT+WBUS when compared to FFDM alone was 20% (exact 95% CI:12.7%-29.2%) in the ipsilateral and 1.6% (exact 95% CI:0.04%-8.7%) in the contralateral breast. FFDM+DBT findings changed the surgical plan in 1% while FFDM+DBT+US findings changed the surgical plan in 20%.

CONCLUSION

Our interim analysis indicates that there is a greater increase in cancer detection in the ipsilateral and contralateral breasts when adding WBUS to FFDM, compared to adding DBT to FFDM.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE/APPLICATION

In large tertiary cancer centers, use of FFDM+DBT provides no significant advantage over FFDM when staging breast cancer; more studies are needed to establish proper indications for DBT in the diagnostic setting.