Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Four Breast Imaging Modalities in Dense Breasts: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of four imaging modalities-digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-applied individually and in combination in early cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Methods: This single-center retrospective study was conducted from January 2021 to September 2024 at the Oncology Institute of Vojvodina in Serbia and included 168 asymptomatic and symptomatic women with dense breasts. Based on the exclusion criteria, the final number of women who were screened with all four imaging methods was 156. The reference standard for checking the diagnostic accuracy of these methods is the result of a histopathological examination, if a biopsy is performed, or a stable radiological finding in the next 12-24 months. Results: The findings underscore the superior diagnostic performance of breast MRI with the highest sensitivity (95.1%), specificity (78.7%), and overall accuracy (87.2%). In contrast, DM showed the lowest sensitivity (87.7%) and low specificity (49.3%). While the combination of DM + DBT + US demonstrated improved sensitivity to 96.3%, its specificity drastically decreased to 32%, illustrating as ensitivity-specificity trade-off. Notably, the integration of all four modalities increased sensitivity to 97.5% but decreased specificity to 29.3%, suggesting an overdiagnosis risk. DBT significantly improved performance over DM alone, likely due to enhanced tissue differentiation. US proved valuable in dense breast tissue but was associated with a high false-positive rate. Breast MRI, even when used alone, confirmed its status as the gold standard for dense breast imaging. However, its widespread use is constrained by economic and logistical barriers. ROC curve analysis further emphasized MRI's diagnostic superiority (AUC = 0.958) compared with US (0.863), DBT (0.828), and DM (0.820). Conclusions: This study provides a unique, comprehensive comparison of all four imaging modalities within the same patient cohort, offering a rare model for optimizing diagnostic pathways in women with dense breasts. The findings support the strategic integration of complementary imaging approaches to improve early cancer detection while highlighting the risk of increased false-positive rates. In settings where MRI is not readily accessible, a combined DM + DBT + US protocol may serve as a pragmatic alternative, though its limitations in specificity must be carefully considered.