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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 2/2018

01-02-2018 | Breast

Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis

Authors: Gisella Gennaro, D. Bernardi, N. Houssami

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare radiation dose delivered by digital mammography (FFDM) and breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for a single view.

Methods

4,780 FFDM and 4,798 DBT images from 1,208 women enrolled in a screening trial were used to ground dose comparison. Raw images were processed by an automatic software to determine volumetric breast density (VBD) and were used together with exposure data to compute the mean glandular dose (MGD) according to Dance’s model. DBT and FFDM were compared in terms of operation of the automatic exposure control (AEC) and MGD level.

Results

Statistically significant differences were found between FFDM and DBT MGDs for all views (CC: MGDFFDM=1.366 mGy, MGDDBT=1.858 mGy; p<0.0001; MLO: MGDFFDM=1.374 mGy, MGDDBT=1.877 mGy; p<0.0001). Considering the 4,768 paired views, Bland-Altman analysis showed that the average increase of DBT dose compared to FFDM is 38 %, and a range between 0 % and 75 %.

Conclusions

Our findings show a modest increase of radiation dose to the breast by tomosynthesis compared to FFDM. Given the emerging role of DBT, its use in conjunction with synthetic 2D images should not be deterred by concerns regarding radiation burden, and should draw on evidence of potential clinical benefit.

Key Points

• Most studies compared tomosynthesis in combination with mammography vs. mammography alone.
• There is some concern about the dose increase with tomosynthesis.
• Clinical data show a small increase in radiation dose with tomosynthesis.
• Synthetic 2D images from tomosynthesis at zero dose reduce potential harm.
• The small dose increase should not be a barrier to use of tomosynthesis.
Literature
1.
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
2.
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
3.
Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) 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. EurRadiol 26:184–190
4.
Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton T Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR 200:1401–1408CrossRefPubMed
5.
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 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed
6.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
7.
McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2015) Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. AJR 205:1143–1148CrossRefPubMed
8.
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
9.
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 202:273–281CrossRefPubMed
10.
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 277:697–706CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
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
13.
Paulis LE, Lobbes MB, Lalji UC et al (2015) Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol 50:679–685CrossRef
14.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Ebn 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
15.
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
16.
Houssami N, Bernardi D, Pellegrini M et al (2017) Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial. Cancer Epidemiol 47:94–99CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Highnam R, Jeffreys M, McCormack V, Warren R, Davey Smith G, Brady W (2007) Comparing measurements of breast density. Phys Med Biol 52:5881–5895CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Alonzo-Proulx O, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ (2012) Volumetric breast density characteristics as determined from digital mammograms. Phys Med Biol 57:7443–7457CrossRefPubMed
21.
Destounis S, Johnston L, Highnam R, Arleno A, Morgan R, Chan R (2017) Using volumetric breast density to quantify the potential masking risk of mammographic density. AJR 208:222–227CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefPubMed
23.
Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2009) Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 54:4361–4372CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453–471CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sechopoulos I, Sabol JM, Berglund J et al (2014) Radiation dosimetry in digital breast tomosynthesis: report of AAPM Tomosynthesis Subcommittee Task Group 223. Med Phys 41:091501CrossRefPubMed
26.
Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317CrossRef
27.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. EurRadiol 16:2559–2566
29.
Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A et al (2010) Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR 194:362.369CrossRefPubMedCentral
30.
Gur D, Zuley M, 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
Metadata
Title
Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis
Authors
Gisella Gennaro
D. Bernardi
N. Houssami
Publication date
01-02-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5024-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

European Radiology 2/2018 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal

CT Perfusion evaluation of gastric cancer: correlation with histologic type

Paediatric

Individual radiation exposure from computed tomography: a survey of paediatric practice in French university hospitals, 2010–2013

Molecular Imaging

Comparison of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: Additional value of morphologic information from low dose CT

Erratum

Erratum to: Effects of radiation dose reduction in volume perfusion CT imaging of acute ischaemic stroke

Chest

Comparison between free-breathing radial VIBE on 3-T MRI and endoscopic ultrasound for preoperative T staging of resectable oesophageal cancer, with histopathological correlation

Magnetic Resonance

Invasive placenta previa: Placental bulge with distorted uterine outline and uterine serosal hypervascularity at 1.5T MRI – useful features for differentiating placenta percreta from placenta accreta