Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate interobserver agreement in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization, and to evaluate the cancer detection rate of standard two-view FFDM compared to various combinations of DBT.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five women (mean age 59.7; range 50–80 years) with 37 breast cancers who underwent both two-view DBT and two-view FFDM were included. DBT images were obtained using an investigational prototype. We performed interobserver agreement analyses using kappa (k) statistics. The cancer detection rate of various combinations of DBT compared to standard two-view FFDM was estimated using a generalized estimation equation.

Results

There was fair to moderate agreement on detectability (k = 0.59–0.62) in both views of FFDM and DBT, while fair to substantial agreement was found for lesion location (k = 0.52–0.84) and fair to moderate agreement for lesion type (k = 0.46–0.70) and BI-RADS final assessment (k = 0.48–0.69). In generalized estimation equations, standard two-view FFDM was inferior to any combination of DBT. The detection rate ratio was significantly higher in the combined four views of DBT and FFDM compared to standard FFDM (p < 0.046).

Conclusion

Our study showed good agreement in lesion detection and characterization between FFDM and DBT images. Our findings also demonstrated that combining DBT and FFDM is superior in detecting cancer compared to standard FFDM.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tabar 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 

  3. Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:895–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, 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 

  7. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2817–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1545–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:586–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262:788–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, 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;266:104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e1074–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, Chersevani R, di Maggio C, La Grassa M, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:664–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. US Food and Drug Administration. Radiation-emitting products: Mammography quality standards act regulations. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/Regulations/default.htm. Accessed 2 Jul 2013.

  21. American college of radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th. Reston, VA: American college of radiology; 2013.

  22. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:571–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Feng SS, Sechopoulos I. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology. 2012;263:35–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1298–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, 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;271:655–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the financial support from the R&D Convergence Program of NST (National Research Council of Science and Technology) of Republic of Korea (Grant CAP-13-3-KERI).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, 388-1 Pungnap-2dong, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Korea

    Woo Jung Choi, Hak Hee Kim, Sun Young Lee, Eun Young Chae, Hee Jung Shin & Joo Hee Cha

  2. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea

    Byung Ho Son & Sei Hyun Ahn

  3. Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, Ansan, Korea

    Young-Wook Choi

Authors
  1. Woo Jung Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hak Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sun Young Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eun Young Chae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hee Jung Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joo Hee Cha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Byung Ho Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sei Hyun Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Young-Wook Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hak Hee Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, W.J., Kim, H.H., Lee, S.Y. et al. A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23, 886–892 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0656-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0656-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation