Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2017

01-11-2017 | Clinical trial

Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice

Authors: Phoebe E. Freer, Joanna Riegert, Laura Eisenmenger, Dominik Ose, Nicole Winkler, Matthew A. Stein, Gregory J. Stoddard, Rachel Hess

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most published studies evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) included a separate 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for DBT screening protocols, increasing radiation from screening mammography. Synthesized mammography (SM) creates a 2-dimensional image from the DBT source data, and if used in place of FFDM, it reduces radiation of DBT screening. This study evaluated the implementation of SM + DBT in routine screening practice in terms of recall rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), % of minimal cancers, % of node-positive cancers, and positive predictive values (PPV).

Materials and methods

A multivariate retrospective institutional analysis was performed on 31,979 women who obtained screening mammography (10/2013–12/2015) with cohorts divided by modality (SM + DBT, FFDM + DBT, and FFDM). We adjusted for comparison mammograms, age, breast density, and the interpreting radiologist. Recall type was analyzed for differences (focal asymmetry, asymmetry, masses, calcifications, architectural distortion).

Results

SM + DBT significantly decreased the recall rate compared to FFDM (5.52 vs. 7.83%, p < 0.001) with no differences in overall CDR (p = 0.66), invasive and/or in situ CDR, or percentages of minimal and node-negative cancers. PPV1 significantly increased with SM + DBT relative to FFDM (9.1 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.02). SM + DBT did not differ significantly in recall rate or overall CDR compared to FFDM + DBT. There were statistically significant differences in certain findings recalled by screening modality (e.g., focal asymmetries).

Conclusions

SM + DBT reduces false positives compared to FFDM, while maintaining the CDR and other desirable audit outcome data. SM + DBT is more accurate than FFDM alone, and is a desirable alternative to FFDM + DBT, given the added benefit of radiation reduction.
Literature
1.
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(24):2499–2507CrossRefPubMed Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
2.
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(1):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(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Rose S, Tidwell A, Bujnoch L et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentengenol 200(6):1401–1408CrossRef Rose S, Tidwell A, Bujnoch L et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentengenol 200(6):1401–1408CrossRef
4.
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):316CrossRef 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):316CrossRef
5.
go back to reference McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, Schnall M, Conant EC (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2(6):737–743CrossRefPubMed McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, Schnall M, Conant EC (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2(6):737–743CrossRefPubMed
6.
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(7):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(7):583–589CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269(3):694–700CrossRefPubMed Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269(3):694–700CrossRefPubMed
12.
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(2):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(2):93–99CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference 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(2):166–171CrossRefPubMed 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(2):166–171CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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(3):655–663CrossRefPubMed 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(3):655–663CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference 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(3):664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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(3):664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277(3):697–706CrossRefPubMed Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277(3):697–706CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference 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(8):1105–1113CrossRefPubMed 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(8):1105–1113CrossRefPubMed
20.
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(3):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(3):730–736CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston
22.
go back to reference Williams R (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12(2):308–331 Williams R (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12(2):308–331
23.
go back to reference Muller CJ, MacLehose RF (2014) Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations. Int J Epidemiol 43(3):962–970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Muller CJ, MacLehose RF (2014) Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations. Int J Epidemiol 43(3):962–970CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H et al (2006) A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Commun Health 60(4):290–297CrossRef Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H et al (2006) A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Commun Health 60(4):290–297CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press Publication, College Station Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press Publication, College Station
Metadata
Title
Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice
Authors
Phoebe E. Freer
Joanna Riegert
Laura Eisenmenger
Dominik Ose
Nicole Winkler
Matthew A. Stein
Gregory J. Stoddard
Rachel Hess
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine