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.