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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507
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):47–56
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):1401–1408
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):316
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):737–743
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):583–589
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):694–700
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Version 1.2016, 7/27/16. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
US Food and Drug Administration. Published February 11, 2011. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/p080003a.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
US Food and Drug Administration. Published August 24, 2014. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/P130020a.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
US Food and Drug Administration. Published April 21, 2015. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf14/P140011a.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2016
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):93–99
Feng SS, Sechopoulos I (2012) Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology 263(1):35–42
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Published May, 16, 2013. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/p080003s001a.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2016
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):166–171
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):655–663
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):664–671
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):697–706
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):1105–1113
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):730–736
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
Williams R (2012) Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12(2):308–331
Muller CJ, MacLehose RF (2014) Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations. Int J Epidemiol 43(3):962–970
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):290–297
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press Publication, College Station
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
This study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board.
Informed consent
The need for informed consent was waived secondary to the nature of the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Freer, P.E., Riegert, J., Eisenmenger, L. et al. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166, 501–509 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1