Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cancer Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

  • Breast Imaging (H Ojeda-Fournier and A Chong, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To bring the reader up to date on recent literature on cancer detection with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

Recent Findings

Many early landmark trials have recently published follow-up studies comparing DBT and synthesized DBT (SM + DBT) to digital mammography (DM). Recent work has also focused on interval cancers and biological characteristics of DBT cancers in efforts to assess the impact of cancer detection with DBT.

Summary

Consistent increases in cancer detection and overall reductions in recall rates are observed with DBT and maintained with SM + DBT. Studies on interval cancers are underpowered to show significant differences; however, rates are similar or decreased with DBT vs. DM. DBT-detected cancers are more often invasive, but smaller, with less aggressive profiles compared to DM cancers. Future directions will assess whether detection of such cancers will affect morbidity and mortality of breast cancer.

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

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, 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 

  3. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–507.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, 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(1):109–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, et al. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:184–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Skaane P, Sebuodegard S, Bandos A, Gur D, Osteras B, et al. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. • Skaane P, Bandos A, Niklason L, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 2019; 291: 23–30. The final report of the OTST, which shows significant improvements in sensitivity and specificity with DBT, which are maintained with SM + DBT.

  9. Osteras B, Martinsen A, Gullien R, Skaane P. Digital mammography versus breast tomosynthesis: impact of breast density on diagnostic performance in population-based screening. Radiology. 2019;293:60–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, et al. 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. 2016;17(8):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zackrisson S, Lang K, Rosso A, Johnson K, et al. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):1493–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan M, Willsher P, Cooke J, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology. 2015;277(3):697–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Romanucci G, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(1):37–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K, et al. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170:391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Rossi P, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. Radiology. 2018;288:375–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernardi D, Gentilini MA, De Nisi M, et al. Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation. The Breast. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.09.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofvind S, Holen A, Aase H, Houssami N, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomized, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:795–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen AS, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population based screening program. Radiology. 2018;287(3):787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hovda T, Holen ÅS, Lång K. Interval and consecutive round breast cancer after digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus standard 2D digital mammography in breast screen Norway. Radiology. 2020;294(2):256–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rafferty EA, Rose S, Miller D, Durand MA, et al. Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:659–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1784–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. • Conant EF, Barlow W, Herschorn S, Weaver D. Association of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and density. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(5):635–42. The latest report from the PROSPR trial.

  23. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Georgian-Smith D, Obuchowski N, Lo J, Brem R, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace full-field digital mammography? A multireader multicase study of wide-angle tomosynthesis. AJR. 2019;212(6):1393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bahl M, Gaffney S, McCarthy A, et al. Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers. Radiology. 2018;287(1):49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Maidment AD, Barufaldi B, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ambinder E, Harvey SC, Panigrahi B, Woods RW. Clinical screening performance of tomosynthesis with synthesized 2D mammograms compared to tomosytheisis with full field digital mammography. Radiological society of North America annual meeting, 2016.

  33. Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, Holt JS. Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimentional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology. 2017;283(1):70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Freer PE, Riegert J, Eisenmenger L, Ose D, Winkler N, et al. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166:501–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zuckerman S, Sprague BL, Weaver DL, Herschorn SD, et al. Survey results regarding uptake and impact of synthetic digital mammography with tomosynthesis in the screening setting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;S1546–1440(19):30864–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. • Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110(9):942–9. Excellent meta-analysis of key DBT studies.

  37. Alabousi M, Zha N, Salameh JP, Samoilov L, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06549-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Houssami N, Hunter K. The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017;3:12. Reviews the significance of interval breast cancers.

  39. • Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, et al. Interval breast cancers in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) population-based trial. Breast 2018;38:150–3. The latest update from the STORM trial, which focuses on interval cancers.

  40. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, et al. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography outcomes: analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tabar L, Yen A, Wu W, et al. 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. 2015;21(1):13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Broeders M, Allgood P, Duffy S, et al. The impact of mammography screening programmes on incidence of advanced breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:860.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Yun SJ, Ryu CW, Rhee SJ, et al. Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:557–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. • Johnson K, Zackrisson S, Rosso A, et al. Tumor characteristics and molecular subtypes in breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 2019;293:273–81. Most recent publication from the MBST which highlights cancer biology.

  45. Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK, et al. Biologic profiles of invasive breast cancers detected only with digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR. 2017;209:1411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dang PA, Wang A, Senapati GM, et al. Comparing tumor characteristics and rates of breast cancers detected by screening breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. AJR. 2020;214(3):701–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Miglioretti DL, Abraham L, Lee CI, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: radiologist learning curve. Radiology. 2019;291(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lang K. The coming age of breast tomosynthesis in screening. Radiology. 2019;291:31–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • Geras KJ, Mann R, Moy L. Artificial intelligence for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: current concepts and future perspectives. Radiology 2019;293:246–59. Up to date overview of AI and screening mammography.

  50. Conant E, Toledano A, Periaswamy S, et al. Improving accuracy and efficiency with concurrent use of artificial intelligence for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Radiol Artif Intell. 2019;1(4):e180096. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2019180096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale University, New Haven, USA

    Lisa Katherine Harris, Vivian Mai-Tran & Melissa Durand

Authors
  1. Lisa Katherine Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vivian Mai-Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa Durand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Harris and Dr. Mai-Tran declare no potential conflicts of interest that are relevant to this manuscript. Dr. Durand reports grants from Hologic, Inc., outside the submitted work.

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

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the Topical collection on Breast Imaging.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, L.K., Mai-Tran, V. & Durand, M. Cancer Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Curr Radiol Rep 8, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-020-00347-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-020-00347-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation