Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to determine if the diagnostic performance of breast lesion examinations could be improved using both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional digital mammography (CDM).

Methods

Our institutional review board approved the protocol, and patients were provided the opportunity to opt out of the study. A total of 628 patients aged 22–91 years with abnormal screening results or clinical symptoms were consecutively enrolled between June 2015 and March 2016. All patients underwent DBT and CDM, and 1164 breasts were retrospectively analyzed by three radiologists who interpreted the results based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Categories 4 and 5 were considered positive, and pathological results were the gold standard. The diagnostic performance of CDM and CDM plus DBT was compared using the mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

A total of 100 breast cancer cases were identified. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.9160 (95% confidence interval 0.8779–0.9541) for CDM alone and 0.9376 (95% confidence interval 0.9019–0.9733) for CDM plus DBT. The cut-off values for both CDM alone and CDM plus DBT measurements were 4, with sensitivities of 61.0% (61/100) and 83.0% (83/100), respectively, and specificities of 99.1% (1054/1064) and 98.9% (1052/1064), respectively. CDM yielded 39 false-negative diagnoses, while CDM plus DBT identified breast cancer in 22 of those cases (56.4%).

Conclusion

The combination of DBT and CDM for the diagnosis of breast cancer in women with abnormal examination findings or clinical symptoms proved effective and should be used to improve the diagnostic performance of breast cancer examinations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BI-RADS:

Breast imaging reporting and database system

CDM:

Conventional digital mammography

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

References

  1. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L. Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology. 2012;26:471–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Gröntoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988;297:943–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999;353:1903–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260:658–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas B, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1147–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40:014301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;2013:687–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311:2499–507.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. Virginia: Reston; 2013.

  18. Takamoto Y, Tsunoda H, Kikuchi M, Hayashi N, Honda S, Koyama T, et al. Role of breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer for Japanese women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:3037–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Ruppel PL, Oh HY, et al. Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:1254–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:320–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, et al. Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology. 2016;281:54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giess CS, Pourjabbar S, Ip IK, Lacson R, Alper E, Khorasani R. Comparing diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography in a hybrid screening environment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:929–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Powell JL, Hawley JR, Lipari AM, Yildiz VO, Erdal BS, Carkaci S. Impact of the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendations for short-term follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:302–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan

    Ryoko Ohashi, Michinobu Nagao, Izumi Nakamura & Shuji Sakai

  2. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan

    Takahiro Okamoto

Authors
  1. Ryoko Ohashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michinobu Nagao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Izumi Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takahiro Okamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuji Sakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryoko Ohashi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohashi, R., Nagao, M., Nakamura, I. et al. Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 25, 590–596 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-0859-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-0859-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation