Skip to main content
Top
Published in: La radiologia medica 10/2017

Open Access 01-10-2017 | BREAST RADIOLOGY

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa)

Authors: Daniela Bernardi, Paolo Belli, Eva Benelli, Beniamino Brancato, Lauro Bucchi, Massimo Calabrese, Luca A. Carbonaro, Francesca Caumo, Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola, Paola Clauser, Chiara Fedato, Alfonso Frigerio, Vania Galli, Livia Giordano, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Paola Golinelli, Doralba Morrone, Giovanna Mariscotti, Laura Martincich, Stefania Montemezzi, Carlo Naldoni, Adriana Paduos, Pietro Panizza, Federica Pediconi, Fiammetta Querci, Antonio Rizzo, Gianni Saguatti, Alberto Tagliafico, Rubina M. Trimboli, Marco Zappa, Chiara Zuiani, Francesco Sardanelli

Published in: La radiologia medica | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5–2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8–3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Baldwin P (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Technol 81:57M–74MPubMed Baldwin P (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Technol 81:57M–74MPubMed
3.
go back to reference Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310CrossRefPubMed Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRefPubMed Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A et al (2015) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A et al (2015) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju316 McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11). doi:10.​1093/​jnci/​dju316
13.
go back to reference Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693CrossRefPubMed Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12:377–379CrossRefPubMed Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12:377–379CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117CrossRef Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F et al (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796CrossRefPubMed Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F et al (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2014) 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:273–281CrossRefPubMed Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2014) 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:273–281CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Clauser P et al (2016) Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol 85:808–814CrossRefPubMed Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Clauser P et al (2016) Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol 85:808–814CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Cavagnetto F, Taccini G, Rosasco R et al (2013) ‘In vivo’ average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 157:53–61CrossRef Cavagnetto F, Taccini G, Rosasco R et al (2013) ‘In vivo’ average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 157:53–61CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Svahn TM, Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or in two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 165:314–320CrossRef Svahn TM, Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or in two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 165:314–320CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S (2015) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast 24:93–99CrossRefPubMed Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S (2015) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast 24:93–99CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171CrossRefPubMed Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projections images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projections images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M (2016) 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 17:1105–1113CrossRefPubMed Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M (2016) 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 17:1105–1113CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol 26:2538–2546CrossRefPubMed Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol 26:2538–2546CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281:730–736CrossRefPubMed Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281:730–736CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Nam KJ, Han BK, Ko ES et al (2015) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in ultrasonography-detected breast cancers. Breast 24:649–655CrossRefPubMed Nam KJ, Han BK, Ko ES et al (2015) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in ultrasonography-detected breast cancers. Breast 24:649–655CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1882–1888. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147 CrossRef Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 34:1882–1888. doi:10.​1200/​JCO.​2015.​63.​4147 CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening–viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358CrossRefPubMed Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening–viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Colin C, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Sardanelli F (2014) Is breast cancer overdiagnosis also nested in pathologic misclassification? Radiology 273:625–652CrossRef Colin C, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Sardanelli F (2014) Is breast cancer overdiagnosis also nested in pathologic misclassification? Radiology 273:625–652CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56CrossRefPubMed Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:267–271CrossRefPubMed Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:267–271CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743CrossRefPubMed McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:109–116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:109–116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
go back to reference Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Gilbert F, Tucker L, Gillan M et al (2015) The TOMMY trial: a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 19:1–136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gilbert F, Tucker L, Gillan M et al (2015) The TOMMY trial: a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess 19:1–136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
go back to reference Morel JC, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2014) The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. Clin Radiol 69:1112–1116CrossRefPubMed Morel JC, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2014) The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. Clin Radiol 69:1112–1116CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544CrossRefPubMed Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M et al (2013) Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol 68:e225–e236CrossRefPubMed Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M et al (2013) Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol 68:e225–e236CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Bansal GJ, Young P (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic “one-stop breast clinic” for characterization of subtle findings. Br J Radiol 88(1053):20140855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bansal GJ, Young P (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic “one-stop breast clinic” for characterization of subtle findings. Br J Radiol 88(1053):20140855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
go back to reference Fornick D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247CrossRef Fornick D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Cornford EJ, Turnbull AE, James JJ et al (2016) Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions. Br J Radiol 89(1058):20150735CrossRefPubMed Cornford EJ, Turnbull AE, James JJ et al (2016) Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions. Br J Radiol 89(1058):20150735CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Whelehan P, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72:95.e9–95.e15CrossRef Whelehan P, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ et al (2017) Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 72:95.e9–95.e15CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Timberg P, Bath M, Andersson I et al (2010) In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Med Phys 37:5618–5626CrossRefPubMed Timberg P, Bath M, Andersson I et al (2010) In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Med Phys 37:5618–5626CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterizing invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 71:889–895CrossRefPubMed Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterizing invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 71:889–895CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2014) Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 34:1219–1226PubMed Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2014) Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 34:1219–1226PubMed
52.
go back to reference Clauser P, Carbonaro A, Pancot M et al (2015) Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second look digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 25:2830–2839CrossRefPubMed Clauser P, Carbonaro A, Pancot M et al (2015) Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second look digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 25:2830–2839CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P et al (2014) Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 50:1232–1238CrossRefPubMed Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P et al (2014) Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 50:1232–1238CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S et al (2014) Incremental effect from integrating 3D-ammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 23:76–80CrossRefPubMed Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S et al (2014) Incremental effect from integrating 3D-ammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 23:76–80CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Ice MF et al (2014) A reader study comparing prospective tomosynthesis interpretations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations. Acad Radiol 21:1204–1210CrossRefPubMed Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Ice MF et al (2014) A reader study comparing prospective tomosynthesis interpretations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations. Acad Radiol 21:1204–1210CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Hakim CM, Catullo VJ, Chough DM et al (2015) Effect of the availability of prior full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis images on the interpretation of mammograms. Radiology 276:65–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hakim CM, Catullo VJ, Chough DM et al (2015) Effect of the availability of prior full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis images on the interpretation of mammograms. Radiology 276:65–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Álvarez M et al (2016) Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4612-z Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Álvarez M et al (2016) Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-016-4612-z
58.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Fallenberg EM, Clauser P, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2017) Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging 8:11–18 Sardanelli F, Fallenberg EM, Clauser P, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2017) Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging 8:11–18
59.
go back to reference Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566CrossRefPubMed Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Chelliah KK, Tamanang S, Bt Elias LS, Ying KY (2013) A comparative study of computed radiography-based mammography using digital phosphor storage plate and full field digital mammography. Indian J Med Sci 67:2328CrossRef Chelliah KK, Tamanang S, Bt Elias LS, Ying KY (2013) A comparative study of computed radiography-based mammography using digital phosphor storage plate and full field digital mammography. Indian J Med Sci 67:2328CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Giordano L, Giorgi D, Frigerio A, Gruppo Italiano per lo Screening Mammografico et al (2006) Process indicators and standards for the evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes. Epidemiol Prev 30(2 Suppl 1):5–9, 11–47 Giordano L, Giorgi D, Frigerio A, Gruppo Italiano per lo Screening Mammografico et al (2006) Process indicators and standards for the evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes. Epidemiol Prev 30(2 Suppl 1):5–9, 11–47
64.
go back to reference Bucchi L, Belli P, Benelli E et al (2016) Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM. 49. Radiol Med 121:891–896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bucchi L, Belli P, Benelli E et al (2016) Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM. 49. Radiol Med 121:891–896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
65.
go back to reference Sia J, Moodie K, Bressel M et al (2016) A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 61:122–127CrossRefPubMed Sia J, Moodie K, Bressel M et al (2016) A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer 61:122–127CrossRefPubMed
66.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Canavese G et al (2008) Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document “Attualità in senologia”, Florence 2007. Radiol Med 113:1085–1095CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Canavese G et al (2008) Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document “Attualità in senologia”, Florence 2007. Radiol Med 113:1085–1095CrossRefPubMed
67.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMed
68.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F et al (2011) High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 (HIBCRIT-1) Study. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46:94–105CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F et al (2011) High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 (HIBCRIT-1) Study. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46:94–105CrossRefPubMed
69.
go back to reference Santoro F, Podo F, Sardanelli F (2014) MRI screening of women with hereditary predisposition to breast cancer: diagnostic performance and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147:685–687CrossRefPubMed Santoro F, Podo F, Sardanelli F (2014) MRI screening of women with hereditary predisposition to breast cancer: diagnostic performance and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147:685–687CrossRefPubMed
70.
go back to reference Podo F, Santoro F, Di Leo G et al (2016) Triple-negative versus non-triple-negative breast cancers in high-risk women: phenotype features and survival from the HIBCRIT-1 MRI-including screening study. Clin Cancer Res 22:895–904CrossRefPubMed Podo F, Santoro F, Di Leo G et al (2016) Triple-negative versus non-triple-negative breast cancers in high-risk women: phenotype features and survival from the HIBCRIT-1 MRI-including screening study. Clin Cancer Res 22:895–904CrossRefPubMed
71.
go back to reference Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol 25:3669–3678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol 25:3669–3678CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
go back to reference Mariscotti G, Belli P, Bernardi D et al (2016) Mammography and MRI for screening women who underwent chest radiation therapy (lymphoma survivors): recommendations for surveillance from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM. Radiol Med 121:834–837CrossRefPubMed Mariscotti G, Belli P, Bernardi D et al (2016) Mammography and MRI for screening women who underwent chest radiation therapy (lymphoma survivors): recommendations for surveillance from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM. Radiol Med 121:834–837CrossRefPubMed
73.
go back to reference Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR et al (2013) Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 31:2282–2288CrossRefPubMed Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR et al (2013) Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 31:2282–2288CrossRefPubMed
74.
go back to reference Tieu MT, Cigsar C, Ahmed S et al (2014) Breast cancer detection among young survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma with screening magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 120:2507–2513CrossRefPubMed Tieu MT, Cigsar C, Ahmed S et al (2014) Breast cancer detection among young survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma with screening magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 120:2507–2513CrossRefPubMed
75.
go back to reference Sung JS, Lee CH, Morris EA, Oeffinger KC, Dershaw DD (2011) Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of chest irradiation. Radiology 259:65–71CrossRefPubMed Sung JS, Lee CH, Morris EA, Oeffinger KC, Dershaw DD (2011) Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of chest irradiation. Radiology 259:65–71CrossRefPubMed
76.
go back to reference Freitas V, Scaranelo A, Menezes R et al (2013) Added cancer yield of breast magnetic resonance imaging screening in women with a prior history of chest radiation therapy. Cancer 119:495–503CrossRefPubMed Freitas V, Scaranelo A, Menezes R et al (2013) Added cancer yield of breast magnetic resonance imaging screening in women with a prior history of chest radiation therapy. Cancer 119:495–503CrossRefPubMed
77.
go back to reference Viala J, Gignier P, Perret B et al (2013) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies on a digital breast 3D-tomosynthesis system. Breast J 19:4–9CrossRefPubMed Viala J, Gignier P, Perret B et al (2013) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies on a digital breast 3D-tomosynthesis system. Breast J 19:4–9CrossRefPubMed
78.
go back to reference Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 274:654–662CrossRefPubMed Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 274:654–662CrossRefPubMed
79.
go back to reference Hardesty LA, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the society of breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R67–R73CrossRefPubMed Hardesty LA, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the society of breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 13:R67–R73CrossRefPubMed
80.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRefPubMed Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRefPubMed
81.
go back to reference Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Miglioretti D, Whitlock EP, Weyrich MS (2016) Screening for breast cancer with digital breast tomosynthesis [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Miglioretti D, Whitlock EP, Weyrich MS (2016) Screening for breast cancer with digital breast tomosynthesis [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville
Metadata
Title
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa)
Authors
Daniela Bernardi
Paolo Belli
Eva Benelli
Beniamino Brancato
Lauro Bucchi
Massimo Calabrese
Luca A. Carbonaro
Francesca Caumo
Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola
Paola Clauser
Chiara Fedato
Alfonso Frigerio
Vania Galli
Livia Giordano
Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Paola Golinelli
Doralba Morrone
Giovanna Mariscotti
Laura Martincich
Stefania Montemezzi
Carlo Naldoni
Adriana Paduos
Pietro Panizza
Federica Pediconi
Fiammetta Querci
Antonio Rizzo
Gianni Saguatti
Alberto Tagliafico
Rubina M. Trimboli
Marco Zappa
Chiara Zuiani
Francesco Sardanelli
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
La radiologia medica / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0033-8362
Electronic ISSN: 1826-6983
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0769-z

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

La radiologia medica 10/2017 Go to the issue