Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as a Breast Cancer Screening Tool for Women with Gynecologic Cancer

부인암을 가진 여성에서 유방암의 선별검사로서의 디지털 유방단층 촬영술

  • Da-hoon Kim (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Jin Chung (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Eun-Suk Cha (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Jee Eun Lee (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Jeoung Hyun Kim (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital)
  • 김다훈 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 목동병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정진 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 목동병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 차은숙 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 목동병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이지은 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 목동병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김정현 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 목동병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2019.08.08
  • Accepted : 2019.09.27
  • Published : 2020.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of our study was to evaluate digital breast tomosynthesis as a breast cancer screening modality for women with gynecologic cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients with underlying gynecologic malignancies who underwent screening digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer. The cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. PPV1 was defined as the percentage of all positive screening exams that have a tissue diagnosis of cancer within a year. PPV2 was defined as the percentage of all diagnostic exams (and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4, 5 from screening setting) with a recommendation for tissue diagnosis that have cancer within a year. PPV3 was defined as the percentage of all known biopsies actually performed that resulted in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within the year. For each case of screen-detected cancer, we analyzed the age, type of underlying gynecologic malignancy, breast density, imaging features, final Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment, histologic type, T and N stages, molecular subtype, and Ki-67 index. Results Among 508 patients, 7 with breast cancer were identified after a positive result. The cancer detection rate was 13.8 per 1000 screening exams, and the recall rate was 17.9%. The sensitivity was 100%, and the specificity was 83.2%. The false negative rate was 0 per 1000 exams. The PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were 7.7, 31.8, and 31.8, respectively. Conclusion Digital breast tomosynthesis may be a promising breast cancer screening modality for women with gynecologic cancer, based on the high cancer detection rate, high sensitivity, high PPV, and high detection rate of early-stage cancer observed in our study.

목적 본 연구는 부인암을 가진 여성에서 유방암의 선별검사로서의 디지털 유방단층 촬영술을 평가하였다. 대상과 방법 부인암을 가진 환자들 중 검진 목적으로 디지털 유방단층 촬영술을 촬영한 환자들을 대상으로 후향적 연구를 시행하였으며 유방암 발견율, 소환율, 민감도, 특이도, 양성예측도를 계산하였다. 양성예측도 1은 모든 양성 선별검사 중 1년 이내에 조직 검사에서 유방암을 진단받은 환자의 백분율로 정의되었다. 양성예측도 2는 진단 검사에서 조직검사의 필요 판정을 받은 후(그리고 선별 검사에서 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 카테고리 4, 5를 받은 후) 1년 이내에 조직검사에서 유방암을 진단받은 환자의 백분율로 정의되었다. 양성예측도 3은 실제로 조직검사를 시행 받은 환자 중 1년 이내에 조직검사에서 유방암을 진단받은 환자의 백분율로 정의되었다. 검진으로 발견된 암의 각 경우에 대해 환자의 나이, 부인암의 종류, 유방 밀도, 영상의 특징, 최종 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 평가, 조직학적 유형, T 및 N 병기, 분자아형 및 Ki-67 지수를 분석했다. 결과 전체 508명 중 7개의 유방암이 발견되었으며 유방암 발견율은 1000건 당 암 13.8이었다. 민감도는 100%, 특이도는 83.2%였으며 위음성률은 1000건 당 0이었다. 양성예측도 1, 양성예측도 2, 양성예측도 3은 각각 7.7, 31.8, 31.8이었으며 소환율은 17.9%였다. 결론 본 연구에서 디지털 유방단층 촬영술은 높은 유방암 발견율, 높은 민감도, 높은 양성예측도를 보이며 T, N 병기가 낮은 초기 암에 대해 높은 발견율을 보였다. 따라서 부인암 환자와 같은 고위험군에서 유방암의 선별검사로서 디지털 유방단층 촬영술이 유용할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260:658-663
  2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:716-726
  3. Welch HG, Passow HJ. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:448-454
  4. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175
  5. Henderson LM, O'Meara ES, Braithwaite D, Onega T; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance of digital screening mammography among older women in the United States. Cancer 2015;121:1379-1386
  6. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267-279
  7. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317-1325
  8. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427-437
  9. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, Manoukian S, Bergonzi S, Trecate G, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 2011;46:94-105
  10. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469-8476
  11. Komenaka IK, Ditkoff BA, Joseph KA, Russo D, Gorroochurn P, Ward M, et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004;100:2079-2083
  12. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266:104-113
  13. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267:47-56
  14. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:583-589
  15. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269:694-700
  16. Desmond A, Kurian AW, Gabree M, Mills MA, Anderson MJ, Kobayashi Y, et al. Clinical actionability of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:943-951
  17. Win AK, Lindor NM, Jenkins MA. Risk of breast cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15:R27
  18. Ring KL, Garcia C, Thomas MH, Modesitt SC. Current and future role of genetic screening in gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:512-521
  19. Brekelmans CT. Risk factors and risk reduction of breast and ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003;15:63-68
  20. Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Appleton CM, Berg WA, Burnside ES, et al. ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In American College of Radiology, ed. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology 2013
  21. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 1998;11:155-168
  22. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:736-750
  23. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:408-414
  24. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89
  25. Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, Thelen M. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1493-1501
  26. NCI-funded Brest Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography. Avaiable at. http://www.bcsc-research.org/statistics/benchmarks/screening/index.html. Published 2013. Accessed May 14, 2019
  27. Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M, Bergamasco L, Campanino PP, Ruggieri C, et al. Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2014;34:1219-1225
  28. Park IH, Ko K, Joo J, Park B, Jung SY, Lee S, et al. High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean Women. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:4124-4132
  29. Kim SH, Kim MH, Oh KK. Analysis and comparison of breast density according to age on mammogram between Korean and western women. J Korean Radiol Soc 2000;42:1009-1014
  30. Sharpe RE Jr, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, Dialani V, Fein-Zachary VJ, Prakash S, et al. Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosyn-thesis into a population-based screening program. Radiology 2016;278:698-706
  31. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:737-743
  32. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365:1769-1778
  33. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman D, Hylton N, Warner E, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005;103:1898-1905
  34. McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:1143-1148
  35. Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen AS, Lee CI, Albertsen J, Bjorndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2018;287:787-794