Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can Tomosynthesis Replace 2D Mammography as a Future Breast Screening Tool?

  • Screening and Imaging (HTC Le-Petross, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital 2D mammography is the current standard of care for breast cancer screening. False positives and overdiagnosis have been cited as potential harms of screening mammography, and efforts to improve this technology have led to the development of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The literature thus far has shown screening with tomosynthesis to simultaneously decrease recall rates and increase cancer detection. This review evaluates the possibility for 2D plus tomosynthesis mammography to replace conventional 2D screening. It outlines the requirements of an effective screening modality, reviews early and recent literature on performance outcomes, including results by age and density, and highlights potential challenges.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(4):317–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2015–2016. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Cancer Institute: PDQ® Breast Cancer Screening. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Date last modified March 4, 2016. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/hp/breast-screening-pdq. Accessed May 4, 2016

  5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266(1):104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311(24):2499–507 (largest study to date).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56 (population study).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet. 2013;14(7):583–9 (population study).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(1):184–90 (population study).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hakim CM, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Kelly AE, et al. Effect of the availability of prior full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis images on the interpretation of mammograms. Radiology. 2015;276(1):65–72.

  14. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Herschorn SD, Weaver DL, Onega T, 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;156:109–16.

  15. Haas B, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis compared to conventional digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694–700 (tomosynthesis in dense breasts).

  16. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben E, Jebsen IN, Krager M, 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):655–63.

  17. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha A, Nordmann AS, Sexton R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening study: an observational study. AJR. 2013;200:1401–8.

  18. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Yan KS, Heitjan DF, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general population screening program. JNCI 2014;106(11)

  19. 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. 2014;203:687–93.

  20. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, Geisel JL, Raghu M, Hooley RJ, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology. 2015;274(1):85–92.

  21. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2015;274(2):337–42.

  22. McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR. 2015;205:1143–8.

  23. Sharpe RE, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, Dialani V, Fein-Zachary VJ, et al. Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2016;278(3):698–706.

  24. Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, Copit DS, Friedewald S, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and non-dense breasts. J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315(16):1784–6 (tomosynthesis in dense breasts).

  25. Sumkin JH, Ganott MA, Chough DM, Catullo VJ, Zuley ML, et al. Recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis during baseline screening examinations. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:1477–82.

  26. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, Hooley RJ, Horvath LJ, Butler R, Forman HP, Philpotts LE. Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 2016 May 3:151999.

  27. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, Hooley RJ, Horvath LJ, Butler R, Forman HP, Philpotts LE. Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 2016 May 3:151999.

  28. Durand M, Hooley R, Raghu M, Geisel J, Andrejeva-Wright L, Butler R, Horvath L, Philpotts L. Effect of Experience on Tomosynthesis Screening Recall Patterns: Is there a Learning Curve? Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 30 - December 5, 2014, Chicago IL. rsna2014.rsna.org/program/details/?emID=14015843. Accessed October 3, 2016.

  29. Philpotts L, Sheiman L, Raghu M, Durand M, Forman G, Hooley R. Performance of Screening Tomosynthesis by Age. American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting, April 17-22, 2016, Los Angeles CA. http://cf.arrs.org/abstracts/oralpresentations/index.cfm?fid=3445&app=false. Accessed October 4, 2016.

  30. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography- Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncology Published online February 18, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536. (tomosynthesis over 3 years).

  31. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):664–71.

  32. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Gannott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266(1):89–95.

  33. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR. 2013;200(2):291–8.

  34. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49–56.

  35. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganitt MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):586–91.

  36. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):865–9.

  37. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1174–8.

  38. Chan H, Wei J, Zhang Y, Helvie M, et al. Computer-aided detection system of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis mammography: Comparison of three approaches. Med Phys. 2008;35(9):4087–95.

  39. Morra L, Sacchetto D, Durando M, Agliozzo S, Carbonaro LA, et al. Breast cancer: computer-aided detection with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2015;277(1):56–63.

  40. American College of Radiology. CMS establishes breast tomosynthesis values in 2015 MPFS final rule. www.acr.org 2015

  41. Connecticut General Assembly. H.B. No. 5233. www.cga.ct.gov 2016

  42. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson AN, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274(3):772–80.

  43. Bonafede MM, Kalra VB, Miller JD, Fajardo LL. Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population. Clinicoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2014;7:53–63.

  44. Tabar L, Yen A, Wu W, Chen S, Chiu S, et al. Insights from the breast screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast J. 2015;21(1):13–20.

  45. Bjurstam NG, Bjorneld LM, Duffy SW. Updated results of the Gothenburg trial of mammographic screening. Cancer. 2016. doi:10.1002/cncr.29975.

  46. Oeffinger KC, Fontham E, Etzoni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, et al. Breast cancer guidelines for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. J Am Med Assoc. 2015;314(15):1599–614.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208042, New Haven, CT, 06520-8042, USA

    Melissa A. Durand & Liane E. Philpotts

Authors
  1. Melissa A. Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liane E. Philpotts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa A. Durand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Melissa A. Durand reports a research grant from Hologic, Inc. and has served as a consultant for Hologic, Inc. and FUJI Medical.

Liane E. Philpotts has served as a consultant for Hologic, Inc. and FUJI Medical.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening and Imaging

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durand, M.A., Philpotts, L.E. Can Tomosynthesis Replace 2D Mammography as a Future Breast Screening Tool?. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 8, 213–220 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0224-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-016-0224-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation