Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer

Eiji Nakajima; Hiroko Tsunoda; Mariko Ookura; Kanako Ban; Yuko Kawaguchi; Mami Inagaki; Norihiko Ikeda; Kinya Furukawa; Takashi Ishikawa

doi:10.5334/jbsr.2457

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (SM/DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) including women with DBT (FFDM/DBT) undergoing secondary examination for breast cancer.

Material and Methods: Out of 186 breasts, including 52 with breast cancers; FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT findings were interpreted by four expert clinicians. Radiation doses of FFDM, SM/DBT, and FFDM/DBT were determined. Inter-rater reliabilities were analyzed between readers and between FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT by Cohen’s Kappa coefficients. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between SM/DBT and FFDM/DBT by Fisher’s exact tests. Two representative cancer cases were examined for differences in the interpretation between FFDM and SM.

Results: A higher radiation dose was required in FFDM/DBT than in SM/DBT (median: 1.50 mGy vs. 2.95 mGy). Inter-rater reliabilities were similar between both readers and modalities. Both sensitivity and specificity were equivalent in FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT (p= 0.874–1.00). Compared with FFDM, SM did not clearly show abnormalities with subtle margins in the two representative cancer cases.

Conclusion: SM/DBT had a similar performance to FFDM/DBT in detecting breast abnormalities but requires less radiation. DBT complements SM to improve accuracy to a level equivalent to that of FFDM. Taken together, SM/DBT may be a good substitute for FFDM/DBT for the secondary examination of breast cancer.

References

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013; 267(1): 47–56. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121373
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014; 311(24): 2499–2507. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. 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. 2016; 156(1): 109–116. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, et al. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2(6): 737–743. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): A prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(7): 583–589. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106(11): dju316. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju316
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2017; 24(1): 32–41. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-016-0699-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015; 12(4): 377–379. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1028362
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Diekmann F, Bick U. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2007 Dec; 17(12): 3086–3092. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0715-x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, et al. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015; 24(2): 93–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: An observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2012; 19(2): 166–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, 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): 655–663. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131391
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, et al. 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. 2016; 17(8): 1105–1113. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology. 2016; 281(3): 730–736. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160366
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, et al. Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology. 2017; 283(1): 70–76. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162674
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014; 271(3): 664–671. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131530
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, 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): 2538–2546. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4083-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 159–174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, 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. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142566
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chikarmane SA, Yeh ED, Wang A, et al. Conspicuity of screen-detected malignancies on full field digital mammography vs. synthetic mammography. Acad Radiol. 2020; 27(6): 757–763. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.06.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, et al. Imaging with synthesized 2D mammography: Differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209(1): 222–229. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17476
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Spear GG. User experience with Clarity HD and Intelligent 2DTM technology. WP-00143-002, Hologic, Inc. 2019.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer

Abstract

Paradigm

My account