Advertisement

Breast Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 32–41 | Cite as

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis

  • Per SkaaneEmail author
Special Feature Possible supplemental breast cancer screening modalities

Abstract

Purpose

To give an overview of studies comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening.

Materials and methods

The implementation of tomosynthesis in breast imaging is rapidly increasing world-wide. Experimental clinical studies of relevance for DBT screening have shown that tomosynthesis might have a great potential in breast cancer screening, although most of these retrospective reading studies are based on small populations, so that final conclusions are difficult to draw from individual reports. Several retrospective studies and three prospective trials on tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening have been published so far, confirming the great potential of DBT in mammography screening. The main results of these screening studies are presented.

Results

The retrospective screening studies from USA have all shown a significant decrease in the recall rate using DBT as adjunct to mammography. Most of these studies have also shown an increase in the cancer detection rate, and the non-significant results in some studies might be explained by a lack of statistical power. All the three prospective European trials have shown a significant increase in the cancer detection rate.

Conclusion

The retrospective and the prospective screening studies comparing FFDM and DBT have all demonstrated that tomosynthesis has a great potential for improving breast cancer screening. DBT should be regarded as a better mammogram that could improve or overcome limitations of the conventional mammography, and tomosynthesis might be considered as the new technique in the next future of breast cancer screening.

Keywords

Breast cancer screening Digital breast tomosynthesis Full-field digital mammography Mammography screening 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial (OTST): equipment and support for additional reading provided by Hologic, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:3–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012;67:976–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 multicentre, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR. 2009;193:586–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR. 2010;195:172–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, Brandt SR, 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;200:291–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology. 2012;262:61–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266:89–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;203:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR. 2013;200:1401–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;274:85–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;274:337–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju316.
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SI, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311:2499–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1.
  22. 22.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lång 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 Malmø breast tomosynthesis screening trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3.
  25. 25.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. 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. 2013;23:2061–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002.
  28. 28.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. AJR. 2014;202:273–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY, Chae EY, Shin HJ, Cha JH, et al. A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 2015. doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0656-1.
  30. 30.
    Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology. 2015;15:142566.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, Ko ES, Hahn SY, Shin JH, et al. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4083-7.
  33. 33.
    Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R. Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J. 2011;17:638–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Stevanin C, Tagliafico G, Martino L, et al. 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. 2015;25:9–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR. 2014;203:216–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN. Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: Imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 2015. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12446.
  37. 37.
    Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA. Preoperative tomosynthesis-guided needle localization of mammographically and sonographically occult breast lesions. Radiology. 2015;275:377–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T, Detering S, Brolund L, Strobel K, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2015;274:654–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e1174–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Houssami N, Lång K, Bernardi D, Tagliafico A, Zackrisson S, Skaane P. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography): a pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials. Breast. 2016;26:119–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morris E, Feig SA, Drexler M, Lehman C. Implications of overdiagnosis: impact on screening mammography practices. Popul Health Manag. 2015;18:S3–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan strategic anti-cancer randomized trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y, Zhang B, Duan X, Huang R, et al. A multi-centre randomized trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:998–1004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F, et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 2016. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147.
  45. 45.
    Lee WK, Chung J, Cha ES, Lee JE, Kim JH. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:291–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bonafede MM, Kalra VB, Miller JD, Fajardo LL. Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:53–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology. 2015;274:772–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kopans DB. A new era in mammography screening. Radiology. 2014;271:629–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Center, Oslo University Hospital UllevaalUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations