European Radiology

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 2817–2825 | Cite as

Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings

  • Ingvar Andersson
  • Debra M. Ikeda
  • Sophia Zackrisson
  • Mark Ruschin
  • Tony Svahn
  • Pontus Timberg
  • Anders Tingberg
Breast

Abstract

The main purpose was to compare breast cancer visibility in one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) to cancer visibility in one- or two-view digital mammography (DM). Thirty-six patients were selected on the basis of subtle signs of breast cancer on DM. One-view BT was performed with the same compression angle as the DM image in which the finding was least/not visible. On BT, 25 projections images were acquired over an angular range of 50 degrees, with double the dose of one-view DM. Two expert breast imagers classified one- and two-view DM, and BT findings for cancer visibility and BIRADS cancer probability in a non-blinded consensus study. Forty breast cancers were found in 37 breasts. The cancers were rated more visible on BT compared to one-view and two-view DM in 22 and 11 cases, respectively, (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Comparing one-view DM to one-view BT, 21 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). Comparing two-view DM to one-view BT, 12 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). The results indicate that the cancer visibility on BT is superior to DM, which suggests that BT may have a higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection.

Keywords

Breast Tomosynthesis Breast cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society, the European Union 5th Framework Program, the Cancer Foundation of Malmö University Hospital, and by the Sydney L. Frank Foundation

References

  1. 1.
    Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ et al (2000) Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgård C, Janzon L, Linell F (1992) Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:287–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA et al (2001) Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219:192–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, Hessler C, Schnyder P (1999) Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys 26:1365–1370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF (2001) Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M et al (2007) Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilleren DJ, Andersson IT, Lindholm K, Linell FS (1991) Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology 178:25–26Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M et al (2003) Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 30:365–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LO JY, Baker JA, Orman J, Mertelmeier T (2006) Breast tomosynthesis: Initial clinical experience with 100 human subjects (abs). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America SSG01-03, p 335Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rafferty EA (2003) Breast tomosynthesis. Adv Digital Radiography: RSNA Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varjonen M (2006) Three-dimensional (3D) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the early diagnosis and detection of breast cancer. Thesis, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Gur D (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study. AJR 190:865–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore RH, Kopans DB, Rafferty EA et al (2007) Initial callback rates for conventional and digital breast tomosynthesis mammography comparison in the screening setting. (Abs). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America SSG01-01, p 381Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E et al (2005) Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Proc SPIE 5745:529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zoetelief J, Fitzgerald M, Leitz W, Säbel M (1996) European protocol on dosimetry in mammography. Publication EUR 16263 EN, Brussels, Belgium: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mertelmeier T, Orman J, Haerer W, Dudam MK (2006) Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis device. Proc SPIE 6142:131–142Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orman J, Mertelmeier T, Haerer W (2006) Adaptation of image quality using various filter setups in the filtered backprojection approach for digital breast tomosynthesis. In: Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, Zwiggelaar R (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on digital mammography. IWDM, Manchester, UK: Springer, Berlin, pp 175–182Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    “NEMA Standards Publications PS 3.14 (1998) Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function.,” National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2101 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Båth M, Månsson LG (2007) Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80:169–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Metz CE. The computer program ROCKIT 0.9B. Available from C. Metz, Dept of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/
  30. 30.
    Andersson I, Hildell J, Muhlow A, Pettersson H (1978) Number of projections in mammography: influence on detection of breast disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130:349–351PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingvar Andersson
    • 1
  • Debra M. Ikeda
    • 2
  • Sophia Zackrisson
    • 1
  • Mark Ruschin
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tony Svahn
    • 3
  • Pontus Timberg
    • 3
  • Anders Tingberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnostic Centre of Imaging and Functional MedicineMalmö University HospitalMalmöSweden
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyStanford University, Stanford Advanced Medicine CenterStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical Radiation PhysicsLund University, Malmö University HospitalMalmöSweden
  4. 4.Department of Radiation PhysicsUniversity Health Network/Princess Margaret HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations