Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer 1/2020

01-01-2020 | Mammography | Original Article

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis

Authors: Chao You, Yunyan Zhang, Yajia Gu, Qin Xiao, Guangyu Liu, Xigang Shen, Wentao Yang, Weijun Peng

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and subsequently generated synthesized mammography (SM) images show a better performance than full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images for diagnosing malignant breast lesions. In addition, the radiation doses for SM using different procedures were compared.

Materials and methods

This prospective study enrolled 212 women (age ≥ 25 years) with clinically suspicious breast lesions. All participants underwent FFDM and DBT with the same breast compression. Finally, 222 lesions were confirmed by pathological analysis. The mammogram results were evaluated according to the BI-RADS criteria and compared with the pathological results. The diagnostic performances, morphological features and average glandular doses (AGDs) were compared.

Results

In total, 141 malignant lesions and 81 benign lesions were confirmed by pathological analysis. The overall AGD showed no significant difference between FFDM and DBT. Compared with 2D imaging, the AUC values of FFDM plus DBT and SM plus DBT were both significantly different overall (P = 0.0002) and remained significantly different in dense breasts (P < 0.0001). In terms of morphologic characteristics, lesions showed similar morphology between FFDM and SM, while the lesion characteristics were discordant from 2D imaging to DBT in 33 lesions in dense breasts.

Conclusions

Compared to FFDM, 2D SM images generated from DBT had significantly improved diagnostic efficacy for detecting malignant breast lesions without increasing radiation doses. This new procedure is useful for characterizing breast lesions, particularly in dense breasts.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Martinez MP, Etxano J. Breast tomosynthesis: a new tool for diagnosing breast cancer. Radiologia. 2015;57(1):3–8.CrossRef Martinez MP, Etxano J. Breast tomosynthesis: a new tool for diagnosing breast cancer. Radiologia. 2015;57(1):3–8.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Peppard HR, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2015;35(4):975–90.CrossRef Peppard HR, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2015;35(4):975–90.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hodgson R, et al. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast. 2016;27:52–61.CrossRef Hodgson R, et al. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast. 2016;27:52–61.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, 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.CrossRef Gilbert FJ, 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.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chae EY, et al. 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. 2016;89(1062):20150743.CrossRef Chae EY, et al. 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. 2016;89(1062):20150743.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dang PA, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49–56.CrossRef Dang PA, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49–56.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Seo M, et al. Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):438–46.CrossRef Seo M, et al. Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):438–46.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bernardi D, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1174–8.CrossRef Bernardi D, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1174–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bouwman RW, et al. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(20):7893–907.CrossRef Bouwman RW, et al. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(20):7893–907.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Spangler ML, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–4.CrossRef Spangler ML, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–4.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Skaane P, 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.CrossRef Skaane P, 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.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Vecchio S, et al. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(6):1207–13.CrossRef Vecchio S, et al. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(6):1207–13.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Nelson JS, et al. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2538.CrossRef Nelson JS, et al. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2538.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Gur D, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):166–71.CrossRef Gur D, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):166–71.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zuckerman SP, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730–6.CrossRef Zuckerman SP, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Freer PE, et al. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(2):501–9.CrossRef Freer PE, et al. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(2):501–9.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Caumo F, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(1):37–46.CrossRef Caumo F, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(1):37–46.CrossRef
18.
19.
go back to reference Saunders RJ, et al. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys. 2007;34(10):3971–81.CrossRef Saunders RJ, et al. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys. 2007;34(10):3971–81.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Rose SL, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.CrossRef Rose SL, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Zuley ML, 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.CrossRef Zuley ML, 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.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hofvind S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(3):787–94.CrossRef Hofvind S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(3):787–94.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Paulis LE, et al. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(10):679–85.CrossRef Paulis LE, et al. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(10):679–85.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Choi JS, et al. 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. 2016;26(8):2538–46.CrossRef Choi JS, et al. 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. 2016;26(8):2538–46.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Kim SA, et al. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(2):229–38.CrossRef Kim SA, et al. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(2):229–38.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Aujero MP, et al. Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology. 2017;283(1):70–6.CrossRef Aujero MP, et al. Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology. 2017;283(1):70–6.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Pattacini P, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology. 2018;288(2):375–85.CrossRef Pattacini P, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology. 2018;288(2):375–85.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis
Authors
Chao You
Yunyan Zhang
Yajia Gu
Qin Xiao
Guangyu Liu
Xigang Shen
Wentao Yang
Weijun Peng
Publication date
01-01-2020
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00992-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Breast Cancer 1/2020 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