BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS
A BETTER MAMMOGRAPHY
Keywords:
mammography, mass screening, breast neoplasmsAbstract
Digital mammography is an excellent method for detecting breast cancer at an early stage, but overlap of breast structures may lead to both false-positive and false-negative results. The digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is addressed to overcome this limitation of conventional 2D mammography. The purpose of this study was to discuss the multiple aspects related to this new tool, including its role in breast cancer screening, through a literature review. DBT, or 3D mammography, provides a three-dimensional representation of the breast, with the ability to scroll through breast tissue in the reconstructed images, thereby reducing the effect of tissue superimposition. This leads to improved sensitivity and specificity in breast cancer screening. In diagnostic cases, tomosynthesis increases the accuracy with better characterization and localization of the lesions. Prospective and retrospective studies confirm that DBT is superior to digital mammography in breast cancer screening, with 27 to 53% increase in cancer detection and 17 to 37% reduction in false-positive recalls. A total of 40 to 49% of the cancers detected by DBT were invasive: 40 to 48% of histological grade 2 or 3 and more than 75% were node negative. DBT is the most promising new modality for breast cancer screening. Further studies are needed to evaluate the reduction of interval cancers with this modality.
Downloads
References
Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, Eben EB, Eksebh UH, Jahr G, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(5):524-9. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120062
Hardesty LA. Issues to Consider Before Implementing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Into a Breast Imaging Practice. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:681-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13094
Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:299-308. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11520
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vizayaraghavan GP, Kopans DB. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: state of the art.
Radiology. 2015;272(3):663-84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141303
Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40:014301. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4770279
Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013;40:14302. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4770281
Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24(2):93-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655-63.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131391
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):664-71. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131530
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Maidment ADA, Barufaldi B, Weinstein SP, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population based digital breat tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology.
;281(3):730-6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160366 11. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Twoview and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262(3):788-96. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11103514
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):273-81. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11240
Beck N, Butler R, Durand M, Andrejeva, Hooley R, Horvath L, et al. One-View Versus Two-View Tomosynthesis: A Comparison of Breast Cancer Visibility in the Mediolateral Oblique and Craniocaudal Views. In: ARRS; 2013. Scientific Session 27, Breast Imaging. 2013.
Skaane P, Bandos A, 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(1):47-56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373
Rafferty EA., Belfer AJ. Tomosynthesis & synthesized 2-D imaging part II: the evolution of mammography. Applied Radiology Experts Forum Webinars. October, 2013.
Dang PA, Free PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional diagnostic mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49-56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130765
Houssami N, Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fanto C, Ostilliò L, et al. Breast cancer detection using single-reading for breast tomosynthesis (3 D mammography) compared to double reading of 2 D mammography: evidence from a population-based trial. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017;47:94-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2017.01.008
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(3):694-700. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130307
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9672
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(1):104-13. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674
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(7):583-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134‑7
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, et al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM 2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):1105-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2
Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:184-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3
Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast. 2013;22(2):101-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017
McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M, at al. Screening Outcomes Following Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a General Population Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju316
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand M, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-507. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology. 2015;277(3):697-706. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142566
Lang K, Experiences from the Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial Presented at the ECR Annual Meeting, Vienna 2017, Scientific Session Breast tomosynthesis symposium: Is digital breast tomosynthesis ready for mammo screening? In: ECR Annual Meeting, Vienna, 2017. 2017.
Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Is Comparable to Mammographic Spot Views for Mass Characterization. Radiology. 2012;262(1):61-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101763
Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, Brandt SR, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291-8.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Vera Lucia Nunes Aguillar, Selma di Pace Bauab, Aron Belfer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
