The value of computer aided detection system for mammography in the fatty breast: the results of the single-centered, prospective, randomized clinical trial

Aim. To assess the reasonability to use CAD added to mammography with subsequent targeted ultrasound (US) of CAD markings in patients with low-density (ACR A-В) breasts.

Materials and methods. In the prospective study we included 2326 women with low breast density. They were randomized for CAD (MammCheck II of our own design) checking with subsequent targeted US (MMG + CAD group) or without CAD (MMG only group). After the initial screening we performed the 3-year follow-up phase.

Results. Totally, during the primary screening in the MMG only group we found 77 breast cancers (BCs) (28,57% of them sized less than 1 cm), in the MMG + CAD group – 69 BCs (36,23% of them sized less than 1 cm), р > 0.05. The suspicious lesion was identified only during the targeted US of the CAD marking in 4 of 25 women in the MMG + CAD group, and all these BCs were below 1 cm in size. During the subsequent follow-up in the MMG only group we found 5 additional BCs, with no such cases in the MMG + CAD group (p < 0.05). Three of these five BCs were retrospectively marked by CAD. The only visible BC that was not marked by CAD was 3 mm in size.

Discussion. The overall false positive marking rate was 0.31 и 0.28 per film-screen and digital image, respectively (р > 0.05).

Conclusion. The CAD usage added to mammography with subsequent targeted US of markings in patients with low-density (ACR A-В) breast is reasonable due to the significant decrease of the BC rate diagnosed during the 3-year follow-up. This combination detected 77 of the 77 (100.00%) BCs compared to 69 of 74 (93.24%) BCs when only mammography used.

1. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68: 394– 424. http://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.

2. Canto J.G., Kiefe C.I. Age-Specific Analyses of Breast Cancer Versus Heart Disease Mortality in Women. Am. J. Cardiol. 2014; 113: 410–411. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.08.055

3. Kaprin A.D., Starinsky V.V., Petrova G.V. The oncology care for Russian population in 2018: state of the art. Moscow, MNIOI im. P.A.Gertzena, 2019. (In Russian)

4. Seely J.M., Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in 2018 – what should we be doing today? Curr. Oncol. 2018; 25 (Suppl. 1): S115–S124. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3747/co.25.3770

5. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L., Bouvard V., Bianchini F. et al. Breast-cancer screening – viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372: 2353–2358. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1504363

6. Breast-cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40–49 years Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Int. J. Cancer. 1996; 68: 693–699.

7. Pasynkov D.V., Egoshin I.A., Kolchev А.А., Kliouchkin I.V., Busygina O.V. Diagnostic Value of 1st and 2nd Generation Computer Aided Detection Systems for Mammography: a Comparative Assessment. Medical visualization. 2017; 21 (1): 90–102. http://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2017-1-90-102. (In Russian)

8. Pasynkov D.V., Egoshin I.A., Kolchev А.А., Kliouchkin I.V., Pasynkova О.О. The value of computer aided detection system in breast cancer difficult to detect at screening mammography. REJR. 2019; 9 (2): 107–118. http://doi. org/10.21569/2222-7415-2019-9-2-107-118 (In Russian)

9. Egoshin I., Pasynkov D., Kolchev A., Kliouchkin I., Pasynkova O. Asegmentationapproachformammographic images and its clinical value (2018). 2017 IEEE International Conference on Microwaves, Antennas, Communications and Electronic Systems, COMCAS 2017, 2018-January: 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1109/COMCAS.2017.8244764

10. Shaevitch D., Taghipour S., Miller A.B., Montgomery N., Harvey B. Tumor size distribution of invasive breast cancers and the sensitivity of screening methods in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J. Can. Res. Ther. 2017; 13: 562–569. http://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.174539

11. Labazanova P.G., Rozhkova N.I., Burdina I.I., Zapirova S.B., Mazo M. L., Mikushin S. Yu. et al. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer (a look at the history of studying the issue). REJR. 2020; 10 (2): 205–222. http:// doi.org/10.21569/2222-7415-2020-10-2-205-222 (In Russian)

12. Miglioretti D.L., Zhu W., Kerlikowske K., Sprague B.L., Onega T., Buist D.S. et al. Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status. JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1 (8): 1069–1077. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084

13. Peer P.G., van Dijck J.A., Hendriks J.H., Holland R., Verbeek A.L. Age-dependent growth rate of primary breast cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71 (11): 3547–5351.

14. Tubtimhin S, Promthet S, Suwanrungruang K, Supaattagorn P. Molecular Subtypes and Prognostic Factors among Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Thai Women with Invasive Breast Cancer: 15 Years Follow-up Data. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2018; 19 (11): 3167–3174. http://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.11.3167

15. Gazhonova V.E., Efremova M.P., Dorohova E.A. The value of the ultrasound tomography in the assessment of the breast cancer prognosis – molecular classification of the breast cancer. Oncology Bulletin of the Volga Region. 2016; 24 (2): 26–32. (In Russian)

16. Calas M.J.G., Gutfilen B., Pereira W.C.A. CAD and mammography: why use this tool? Radiol. Bras. 2012; 45 (1): 46–52. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-39842012000100011