Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2016

01-08-2016 | Breast

Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer

Authors: Ji Soo Choi, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Eun Sook Ko, Soo Yeon Hahn, Jung Hee Shin, Min Jung Kim

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the interpretative performance of two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of T1-stage invasive breast cancers, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 214 patients. For each patient, FFDM and DBT were performed between January and June 2013, and SM was reconstructed from DBT data. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded visibility scores and morphologies of cancers. Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM were compared. Percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were compared for tumour size, and presence of calcifications for each observer.

Results

Observer sensitivity showed no difference for detection with SM and FFDM (P > 0.05). One observer showed a higher specificity (P = 0.02) and higher positive predictive value with SM (95 % CI 0.6–16.4), but the differences in the corresponding values between SM and FFDM for the other observers were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses according to tumour size and presence of calcifications, percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM are comparable for detecting T1-stage breast cancers. Therefore, our results indicate that SM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging.

Key Points

• DBT plus FFDM increases radiation dose compared to FFDM alone.
• Detecting T1-stage cancers with only SM is comparable to detection with FFDM.
• Two-dimensional SM may replace dose-requiring FFDM in DBT-based imaging.
Literature
1.
Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRefPubMed
4.
Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406CrossRefPubMed
5.
Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240CrossRefPubMed
6.
Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRefPubMed
7.
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
8.
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.
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRefPubMed
12.
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 266:104–113CrossRefPubMed
13.
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
14.
Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529CrossRefPubMed
15.
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
16.
Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS et al (2010) Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 17:450–455CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Röfo 184:911–918PubMed
19.
Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171CrossRefPubMed
20.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Medical devices, products and medical procedures,device approvals and clearances,recently approved devices. Published September 6, 2013 Accessed December 18, 2013
21.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS atlas, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
26.
Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474CrossRefPubMed
27.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
28.
Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB (2007) Early detection of breast cancer: large-section and subgross thick-section histologic correlation with mammographic appearances 1. Radiographics 27:S5–S35CrossRef
29.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Choi JS, Lee CW, Seo HJ et al (2012) Mammographic density assessment: comparison of VolparaTM software and visual BI-RADS classification. J Korean Soc Breast Screen 9:127–132
32.
Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRefPubMed
33.
Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14CrossRefPubMed
34.
Paulis LE, Lobbes M, Lalji UC et al (2015) Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol 50(10):679–685
35.
Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2011) Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology 260:616–620CrossRefPubMed
36.
Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B et al (2003) The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39:1755–1760CrossRefPubMed
37.
Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE et al (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12:21–29CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer
Authors
Ji Soo Choi
Boo-Kyung Han
Eun Young Ko
Eun Sook Ko
Soo Yeon Hahn
Jung Hee Shin
Min Jung Kim
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4083-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

European Radiology 8/2016 Go to the issue

Vascular-Interventional

Gastroduodenal stent placement versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstructions in patients with unresectable gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Gastrointestinal

Multiparametric fully-integrated 18-FDG PET/MRI of advanced gastric cancer for prediction of chemotherapy response: a preliminary study

Breast

Evaluation of breast cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) histogram analysis: comparison with malignant status, histological subtype, and molecular prognostic factors

Oncology

Diagnostic impact of digital tomosynthesis in oncologic patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography

Magnetic Resonance

Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography using time-spin labelling inversion pulse technique for detecting crossing renal vessels in children with symptomatic ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparison with surgical findings

Head and Neck

The signal intensity ratio of the optic nerve to ipsilateral frontal white matter is of value in the diagnosis of acute optic neuritis