Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 8/2016

01.12.2015 | Breast

Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer

verfasst von: Ji Soo Choi, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Eun Sook Ko, Soo Yeon Hahn, Jung Hee Shin, Min Jung Kim

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 8/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the interpretative performance of two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of T1-stage invasive breast cancers, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 214 patients. For each patient, FFDM and DBT were performed between January and June 2013, and SM was reconstructed from DBT data. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded visibility scores and morphologies of cancers. Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM were compared. Percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were compared for tumour size, and presence of calcifications for each observer.

Results

Observer sensitivity showed no difference for detection with SM and FFDM (P > 0.05). One observer showed a higher specificity (P = 0.02) and higher positive predictive value with SM (95 % CI 0.6–16.4), but the differences in the corresponding values between SM and FFDM for the other observers were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses according to tumour size and presence of calcifications, percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM are comparable for detecting T1-stage breast cancers. Therefore, our results indicate that SM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging.

Key Points

DBT plus FFDM increases radiation dose compared to FFDM alone.
Detecting T1-stage cancers with only SM is comparable to detection with FFDM.
Two-dimensional SM may replace dose-requiring FFDM in DBT-based imaging.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310CrossRefPubMed Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRefPubMed Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406CrossRefPubMed Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240CrossRefPubMed Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRefPubMed Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:267–271CrossRefPubMed Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:267–271CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRefPubMed Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefPubMed Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRefPubMed Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
13.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 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
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS et al (2010) Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 17:450–455CrossRefPubMed Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS et al (2010) Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 17:450–455CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Röfo 184:911–918PubMed Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Röfo 184:911–918PubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 19:166–171CrossRefPubMed 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 19:166–171CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Medical devices, products and medical procedures,device approvals and clearances,recently approved devices. Published September 6, 2013 Accessed December 18, 2013 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Medical devices, products and medical procedures,device approvals and clearances,recently approved devices. Published September 6, 2013 Accessed December 18, 2013
21.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed 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 271:655–663CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 271:664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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 271:664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS atlas, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS atlas, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474CrossRefPubMed Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB (2007) Early detection of breast cancer: large-section and subgross thick-section histologic correlation with mammographic appearances 1. Radiographics 27:S5–S35CrossRef Tabár L, Tot T, Dean PB (2007) Early detection of breast cancer: large-section and subgross thick-section histologic correlation with mammographic appearances 1. Radiographics 27:S5–S35CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi JS, Lee CW, Seo HJ et al (2012) Mammographic density assessment: comparison of VolparaTM software and visual BI-RADS classification. J Korean Soc Breast Screen 9:127–132 Choi JS, Lee CW, Seo HJ et al (2012) Mammographic density assessment: comparison of VolparaTM software and visual BI-RADS classification. J Korean Soc Breast Screen 9:127–132
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRefPubMed Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14CrossRefPubMed Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Paulis LE, Lobbes M, Lalji UC et al (2015) Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol 50(10):679–685 Paulis LE, Lobbes M, Lalji UC et al (2015) Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol 50(10):679–685
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2011) Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology 260:616–620CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2011) Mammographic screening and “overdiagnosis”. Radiology 260:616–620CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B et al (2003) The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39:1755–1760CrossRefPubMed Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B et al (2003) The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 39:1755–1760CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE et al (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12:21–29CrossRefPubMed Cuzick J, Sestak I, Pinder SE et al (2011) Effect of tamoxifen and radiotherapy in women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ: long-term results from the UK/ANZ DCIS trial. Lancet Oncol 12:21–29CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer
verfasst von
Ji Soo Choi
Boo-Kyung Han
Eun Young Ko
Eun Sook Ko
Soo Yeon Hahn
Jung Hee Shin
Min Jung Kim
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4083-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2016

European Radiology 8/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.