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 4/2020

01-04-2020 | Breast Cancer | Breast

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Mostafa Alabousi, Nanxi Zha, Jean-Paul Salameh, Lucy Samoilov, Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Alex Pozdnyakov, Behnam Sadeghirad, Vivianne Freitas, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Abdullah Alabousi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

No consensus exists on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) utilization for breast cancer detection. We performed a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DBT, combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and DM alone for breast cancer detection in average-risk women.

Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2018. Comparative design studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of DBT and/or DM for breast cancer detection were included. Demographic, methodologic, and diagnostic accuracy data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Accuracy metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. The impact of multiple covariates was assessed using meta-regression. PROSPERO ID: CRD 42018111287.

Results

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 488,099 patients (13,923 with breast cancer) were included. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and DM alone demonstrated sensitivities of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83–92), 88% (CI 83–92), and 79% (CI 75–82), as well as specificities of 84% (CI 76–89), 81% (CI 73–88), and 79% (CI 71–85), respectively. The greater sensitivities of DBT alone and combined DBT and DM compared to DM alone were preserved in the combined meta-regression models accounting for other covariates (p = 0.003–0.006). No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between DBT alone and combined DBT and DM was identified (p = 0.175–0.581).

Conclusions

DBT is more sensitive than DM, while the addition of DM to DBT provides no additional diagnostic benefit. Consideration of these findings in breast cancer imaging guidelines is recommended.

Key Points

• Digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is more sensitive in detecting breast cancer than digital mammography alone in women at average risk for breast cancer.
• The addition of digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis provides no additional diagnostic benefit in detecting breast cancer compared to digital breast tomosynthesis alone.
• The specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis with or without additional digital mammography is no different than digital mammography alone in the detection of breast cancer.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Lacey JV, Kreimer AR, Buys SS et al (2009) Breast cancer epidemiology according to recognized breast cancer risk factors in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial Cohort. BMC Cancer 9:84CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
3.
Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F et al (2008) Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). Lancet Oncol 9:730–756CrossRefPubMed
4.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786CrossRef
5.
6.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499CrossRefPubMed
7.
Alsheik NH, Dabbous F, Pohlman SK et al (2019) Comparison of resource utilization and clinical outcomes following screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: findings from a learning health system. Acad Radiol 26:597–605CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (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
9.
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
10.
Boroumand G, Teberian I, Parker L, Rao VM, Levin DC (2018) Screening mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: utilization updates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:1092–1096
11.
Sardanelli F, Fallenberg EM, Clauser P et al (2017) Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging 8:11–18CrossRefPubMed
12.
Qaseem A, Lin JS, Mustafa RA et al (2019) Screening for breast cancer in average-risk women: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 170:547CrossRefPubMed
13.
Klarenbach S, Sims-Jones N, Lewin G et al (2018) Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. CMAJ 190:E1441–E1451
14.
15.
Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279CrossRefPubMed
16.
Lei J, Yang P, Zhang L, Wang Y, Yang K (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:595–602
17.
18.
McInnes MDF, Bossuyt PMM (2015) Pitfalls of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in imaging research. Radiology 277:13–21CrossRefPubMed
19.
McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM (2016) Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 281:78–85CrossRefPubMed
20.
McGrath TA, Alabousi M, Skidmore B et al (2017) Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review. Syst Rev 6:194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al (2018) Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319:388
22.
McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Cronin P et al (2019) Best practices for MRI systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:e51–e64CrossRefPubMed
23.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341
24.
25.
Zha N, Alabousi M, Abdullah P et al (2019) Breast cancer screening in high-risk patients during pregnancy and breastfeeding: a systematic review of the literature. J Breast Imaging 1:92–98CrossRef
26.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529CrossRefPubMed
27.
Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS et al (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRefPubMed
28.
McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, Langer FW et al (2017) Treatment of multiple test readers in diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews-meta-analyses of imaging studies. Eur J Radiol 93:59–64CrossRefPubMed
29.
Chu H, Cole SR (2006) Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1331–1332CrossRefPubMed
30.
Dwamena B (2009) MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Statistical Software Components S456880, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 05 Feb 2009
31.
Harbord RM, Whiting P (2009) Metandi: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J 9:211–229CrossRef
32.
Vogelgesang F, Schlattmann P, Dewey M (2018) The evaluation of bivariate mixed models in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies with SAS, Stata and R. Methods Inf Med 57:111–119CrossRefPubMed
33.
Mansour S, Adel L, Mokhtar O, Omar OS (2014) Comparative study between breast tomosynthesis and classic digital mammography in the evaluation of different breast lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 45:1053–1061CrossRef
34.
Taha Ali TF, Magid AM, Tawab MA et al (2016) Potential impact of tomosynthesis on the detection and diagnosis of breast lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 47:351–361CrossRef
35.
Kamal R, Mansour S, El Mesidy D et al (2016) Detection and diagnosis of breast lesions: performance evaluation of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance mammography. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 47:1159–1172CrossRef
36.
El Bakry RAR (2018) Breast tomosynthesis: a diagnostic addition to screening digital mammography. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 49:529–553CrossRef
37.
Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD et al (2019) Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 5:635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
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
39.
Wu Y, Alagoz O, Vanness DJ et al (2014) Pursuing optimal thresholds to recommend breast biopsy by quantifying the value of tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 9037:90370UPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
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
41.
Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ et al (2013) Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:226–231
42.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Perrot N, Dechoux S et al (2015) Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience. Eur J Radiol 84:235–241CrossRefPubMed
43.
Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449CrossRefPubMed
44.
Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24
45.
Tang W, Hu F-X, Zhu H et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: a comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 66:105–116CrossRefPubMed
46.
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
47.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 291:23–30CrossRefPubMed
48.
Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI et al (2018) Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169:489–496CrossRefPubMed
49.
Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–e1082CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Singla D, Chaturvedi AK, Aggarwal A et al (2018) Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of full field digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis using BIRADS score in a tertiary cancer care hospital. Indian J Radiol Imaging 28:115–122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Shin SU, Chang JM, Bae MS et al (2015) Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol 25:1–8CrossRefPubMed
52.
Seo M, Chang JM, Kim SA et al (2016) Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer 19:438–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Gubern-Merida A, Imhof-Tas M et al (2018) One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more? Eur Radiol 28:1938–1948CrossRefPubMed
54.
Ohashi R, Nagao M, Nakamura I et al (2018) Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 25:590–596CrossRefPubMed
55.
Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol 71:889–895CrossRefPubMed
56.
Kim WH, Chang JM, Koo HR et al (2017) Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Acta Radiol 58:148–155CrossRefPubMed
57.
Heywang-Köbrunner S, Jaensch A, Hacker A et al (2017) Value of digital breast tomosynthesis versus additional views for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities - a first analysis. Breast Care (Basel) 12:92–97CrossRef
58.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277:697–706CrossRefPubMed
59.
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672CrossRefPubMed
60.
Garayoa J, Chevalier M, Castillo M et al (2018) Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Eur Radiol 28:565–572CrossRefPubMed
61.
Endo T, Morita T, Oiwa M et al (2018) Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction. Breast Cancer 25:159–166CrossRefPubMed
62.
Cai S-Q, Yan J-X, Chen Q-S et al (2015) Significance and application of digital breast tomosynthesis for the BI-RADS classification of breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16:4109–4114CrossRefPubMed
63.
Bian T, Lin Q, Cui C et al (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a new diagnostic method for mass-like lesions in dense breasts. Breast J 22:535–540CrossRefPubMed
64.
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
65.
Bansal GJ, Young P (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic “one-stop breast clinic” for characterization of subtle findings. Br J Radiol 88:20140855CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA et al (2019) Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 29:477–484CrossRefPubMed
67.
Chan H-P, Helvie MA, Hadjiiski L et al (2017) Characterization of breast masses in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammograms: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 24:1372–1379
68.
Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH et al (2016) Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol 89:20150743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Choi JS, Han B-K, 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
70.
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 34:1219–1225PubMed
71.
Gao Y, Babb JS, Toth HK et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis practice patterns following 2011 FDA Approval. Acad Radiol 24:947–953CrossRefPubMed
72.
Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S et al (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the verona screening program. Radiology 287:37–46CrossRefPubMed
73.
Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen ÅS et al (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2d mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology 287:787–794CrossRefPubMed
74.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG 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
75.
Alshafeiy TI, Wadih A, Nicholson BT et al (2017) Comparison between digital and synthetic 2D mammograms in breast density interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:W36–W41
Metadata
Title
Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Mostafa Alabousi
Nanxi Zha
Jean-Paul Salameh
Lucy Samoilov
Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi
Alex Pozdnyakov
Behnam Sadeghirad
Vivianne Freitas
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Abdullah Alabousi
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06549-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

European Radiology 4/2020 Go to the issue

Head and Neck

Nodal grouping in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: prognostic significance, N classification, and a marker for the identification of candidates for induction chemotherapy

Urogenital

Imaging protocols for renal multiparametric MRI and MR urography: results of a consensus conference from the French Society of Genitourinary Imaging

Computed Tomography

Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness

Magnetic Resonance

Pelvic insufficiency fracture or bone metastasis after radiotherapy for cervical cancer? The added value of DWI for characterization

Cardiac

Pilot study of the multicentre DISCHARGE Trial: image quality and protocol adherence results of computed tomography and invasive coronary angiography

Musculoskeletal

Bone marrow edema in non-traumatic hip: high accuracy of dual-energy CT with water-hydroxyapatite decomposition imaging