Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) in breast cancer screening with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM-DBT) and breast ultrasound (US).

Methods: Women who participated in opportunistic whole-body PET/computed tomography cancer screening programs with breast examinations using dbPET, DM-DBT, and US between 2016-2020, whose results were determined pathologically or by follow-up for at least 1 year, were included. DbPET, DM-DBT, and US assessments were classified into four diagnostic categories: A (no abnormality), B (mild abnormality), C (need for follow-up), and D (recommend further examination). Category D was defined as screening positive. Each modality's recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated per examination to evaluate their diagnostic performance for breast cancer.

Results: Out of 2156 screenings, 18 breast cancer cases were diagnosed during the follow-up period (10 invasive cancers and eight ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS]). The recall rates for dbPET, DM-DBT, and US were 17.8%, 19.2%, and 9.4%, respectively. The recall rate of dbPET was highest in the first year and subsequently decreased to 11.4%. dbPET, DM-DBT, and US had sensitivities of 72.2%, 88.9%, and 83.3%; specificities of 82.6%, 81.4%, and 91.2%; and PPVs of 3.4%, 3.9%, and 7.4%, respectively. The sensitivities of dbPET, DM-DBT, and US for invasive cancers were 90%, 100%, and 90%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the modalities. One case of dbPET-false-negative invasive cancer was identified in retrospect. DbPET had 50% sensitivity for DCIS, while that of both DM-DBT and US was 75%. Furthermore, the specificity of dbPET in the first year was the lowest among all periods, and modalities increased over the years to 88.7%. The specificity of dbPET was significantly higher than that of DM-DBT (p < 0.01) in the last 3 years.

Conclusions: DbPET had a compatible sensitivity to DM-DBT and breast US for invasive breast cancer. The specificity of dbPET was improved and became higher than that of DM-DBT. DbPET may be a feasible screening modality.