Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast cancer is emerging as the most common malignancy in Indian women. Mammography is one of the few screening modalities available to the modern world that has proved itself of much use by aiding early detection and treatment of non-palpable, node-negative breast cancers. However, due to its two-dimensional nature, many cases of malignancies are still missed, to be detected at a later date or by an alternate modality. In 2011, FDA approved the supplemental use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening and diagnostic set ups. The acquisition of multiple low-dose projection images of the compressed parenchyma provided a ‘third’ dimension to the mammogram whereby the breast tissue could be seen layer by layer on the workstation. It improves cancer detection rate, and reduces recall rate and false-positive findings by improving lesion characterization. The current review discusses the principle of DBT with a comprehensive study of the literature.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

NA

Code Availability

NA

References

  1. Malvia S, Bagadi SA, Dubey US, Saxena S (2017) Epidemiology of breast cancer in Indian women: breast cancer epidemiology. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 13:289–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathew A, George PS, Jagathnath Krishna KM et al (2019) Transition of cancer in populations in India. Cancer Epidemiol 58:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2018.12.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol 208:256–266. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH (2004) The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am 42:793–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tabár L, Yen AM-F, Wu WY-Y, Chen SLS, Chiu SYH, Fann JCY, Ku MMS, Smith RA, Duffy SW, Chen THH (2015) Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast J 21:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Webb ML, Cady B, Michaelson JS, Bush DM, Calvillo KZ, Kopans DB, Smith BL (2014) A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened: most breast cancer deaths not screened. Cancer 120:2839–2846. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Popli MB, Teotia R, Narang M, Krishna H (2014) Breast positioning during mammography: mistakes to be avoided. Breast Cancer(Auckl) 8:BCBCR.S17617. https://doi.org/10.4137/BCBCR.S17617

  9. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S, Hendrick E, Mendelson E, D'Orsi C, Sickles E, Burhenne LW (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schünemann HJ, Lerda D, Quinn C, Follmann M, Alonso-Coello P, Rossi PG, Lebeau A, Nyström L, Broeders M, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L, Duffy SW, Borisch B, Fitzpatrick P, Hofvind S, Castells X, Giordano L, Canelo-Aybar C, Warman S, Mansel R, Sardanelli F, Parmelli E, Gräwingholt A, Saz-Parkinson Z, for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Contributor Group (2020) Breast cancer screening and diagnosis: a synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines. Ann Intern Med 172:46–56. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-2125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Porter GJR, Evans AJ, Cornford EJ, Burrell HC, James JJ, Lee AHS, Chakrabarti J (2007) Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival. Am J Roentgenol 188:676–683. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rangarajan K, Hari S, Thulkar S et al (2016) Characterization of lesions in dense breasts: does tomosynthesis help? Indian J Radiol Imaging 26:210. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.184416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277:663–684. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chong A, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF (2019) Digital breast tomosynthesis: concepts and clinical practice. Radiology 292:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jousi MO, Erkkilä J, Varjonen M, Soiva M, Hukkinen K, Blanco Sequeiros R (2019) A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: continuous sync-and-shoot – technical feasibility and initial experience. Acta Radiol Open 8:205846011983625. https://doi.org/10.1177/2058460119836255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tirada N, Li G, Dreizin D, Robinson L, Khorjekar G, Dromi S, Ernst T (2019) Digital breast tomosynthesis: physics, artifacts, and quality control considerations. RadioGraphics 39:413–426. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peppard HR, Nicholson BE, Rochman CM, Merchant JK, Mayo RC III, Harvey JA (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. RadioGraphics 35:975–990. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sechopoulos I, Ghetti C (2009) Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast: acquisition geometry optimization of breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 36:1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3090889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process: breast tomosynthesis review. I. Image acquisition. Med Phys 40:014301. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4770279

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee CH, Destounis SV, Friedewald SM, Newell MS (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) guidance (a supplement to ACR BI-RADS mammography 2013). American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  22. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, Gur D (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Hofvind S (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Houssami N (2014) Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 23:76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Houssami N (2014) Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 50:1232–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Macaskill P (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, Hayes MK, Copit DS, Carlson KL, Cink TM, Barke LD, Greer LN, Miller DP, Conant EF (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. BJR 85:e1074–e1082. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/53282892

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, Niklason LT (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-Ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11103514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK, Lee NK, Song YS, Nam KJ, Choo KS (2017) Biologic profiles of invasive breast cancers detected only with digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol 209:1411–1418. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, Gur D, Østerås BH, Gullien R, Hofvind S (2018) Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169:489–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fontaine M, Tourasse C, Pages E, Laurent N, Laffargue G, Millet I, Molinari N, Taourel P (2019) Local tumor staging of breast cancer: digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Radiology 291:594–603. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 269:694–700. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zackrisson S, Lång K, Rosso A, Johnson K, Dustler M, Förnvik D, Förnvik H, Sartor H, Timberg P, Tingberg A, Andersson I (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 19:1493–1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 21:538–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Park JM, Franken EA, Garg M et al (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. RadioGraphics 27:S231–S240. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.27si075511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Philpotts LE, Kalra VB, Crenshaw J, Butler RS (2013) How tomosynthesis optimizes patient work-up, throughput, and resource utilization [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 191

  43. Roth RG, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, et al Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. 34:15

  44. Patel BK, Covington M, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, Giurescu M, Eversman W, Lewin J (2018) Initial experience of tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsies of tomosynthesis-detected (2D mammography and ultrasound occult) architectural distortions. Am J Roentgenol 210:1395–1400. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Alshafeiy TI, Nguyen JV, Rochman CM, Nicholson BT, Patrie JT, Harvey JA (2018) Outcome of architectural distortion detected only at breast tomosynthesis versus 2D mammography. Radiology 288:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of Mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pujara AC, Hui J, Wang LC (2019) Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management. Clin Imaging 54:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, Rathfon GY, Lu AH, Gur D (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120552

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Ciatto S, Bosco D, Campanino PP, Castellano I, Sapino A, Gandini G (2013) Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med 118:1119–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0941-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Ruppel PL, Oh HY, Chae EY (2013) Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol 68:1254–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.07.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mann RM, Veltman J, Barentsz JO, Wobbes T, Blickman JG, Boetes C (2008) The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.04.020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, Hooley RJ, Horvath LJ, Butler R, Forman HP, Philpotts LE (2016) Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 281:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A (2006) Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast: computation of dose in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 34:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2400836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Feng SSJ, Sechopoulos I (2012) Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology 263:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11111789

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 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 24:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi CJ, Karellas A (2007) Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast: scatter radiation in breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 34:564–576. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2428404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hu Y-H, Zhao B, Zhao W (2008) Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach: image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 35:5242–5252. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2996110

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Machida H, Yuhara T, Mori T, Ueno E, Moribe Y, Sabol JM (2010) Optimizing parameters for flat-panel detector digital tomosynthesis. RadioGraphics 30:549–562. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.302095097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Stevanin C, Tagliafico G, Martino L, Bignotti B, Calabrese M, Houssami N (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 25:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, Perrin R, Chough DM, Shah R, Gur D (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of Tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, Green ED, Heller SL et al (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria® breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 14:S383–S390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Jarvik JG, Ramsey SD, Lehman CD (2015) Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274:772–780. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Indian Council of Medical Research. Three year report of Population Based Cancer Registries, 2009–2011. Bangalore: National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research/National Cancer Registry Programme, 2013

  66. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M (1999) Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 173:921–927. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207:191–199. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, Remida G, Gasparotti C, Galligioni E, Ciatto S (2011) Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 47:1021–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Venturini E, Losio C, Panizza P, Rodighiero MG, Fedele I, Tacchini S, Schiani E, Ravelli S, Cristel G, Panzeri MM, de Cobelli F, del Maschio A (2013) Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40–49-year-old women. Radiology 268:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tagliafico AS, Mariscotti G, Valdora F, Durando M, Nori J, la Forgia D, Rosenberg I, Caumo F, Gandolfo N, Sormani MP, Signori A, Calabrese M, Houssami N (2018) A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). Eur J Cancer 104:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Starikov A, Drotman M, Hentel K, Katzen J, Min RJ, Arleo EK (2016) 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound: which should be used for the different breast densities in breast cancer screening? Clin Imaging 40:68–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, Rathfon GY, Lee Spangler M, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Bandos AI (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, Ekseth U, Izadi M, Hofvind S, Gullien R (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Maidment ADA, Barufaldi B, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, McDonald ES (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281:730–736. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E (2016) How does c - view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?: comparing c - view and FFDM image quality. Med Phys 43:2538–2547. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF (2017) Imaging with synthesized 2D mammography: differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 209:222–229. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, Rathfon GY, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Wallace L, Lu A, Bandos AI (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images. Acad Radiol 19:166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bahl M, Maunglay M, D’Alessandro HA, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of upright digital breast tomosynthesis–guided versus prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 290:298–304. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T, Detering S, Brolund L, Strobel K, Kuhl CK (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis–guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 274:654–662. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Amir T, Barafaldi B, Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Conant EF (2018) Comparison between radiation dose of 2D digital versus digital tomosynthesis guided stereotactic breast biopsies: tomosynthesis wins! [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Dr B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Ekta Dhamija, Malvika Gulati & Smriti Hari

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Dr B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India

    S. V. S. Deo

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dr B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Ajay Gogia

Authors
  1. Ekta Dhamija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malvika Gulati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. V. S. Deo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ajay Gogia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Smriti Hari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekta Dhamija.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Video 1

(MPEG 2.74 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhamija, E., Gulati, M., Deo, S.V.S. et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview. Indian J Surg Oncol 12, 315–329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-021-01310-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-021-01310-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation