Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis

  • Ryoko Ohashi
  • Michinobu Nagao
  • Izumi Nakamura
  • Takahiro Okamoto
  • Shuji Sakai
Original Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to determine if the diagnostic performance of breast lesion examinations could be improved using both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional digital mammography (CDM).

Methods

Our institutional review board approved the protocol, and patients were provided the opportunity to opt out of the study. A total of 628 patients aged 22–91 years with abnormal screening results or clinical symptoms were consecutively enrolled between June 2015 and March 2016. All patients underwent DBT and CDM, and 1164 breasts were retrospectively analyzed by three radiologists who interpreted the results based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Categories 4 and 5 were considered positive, and pathological results were the gold standard. The diagnostic performance of CDM and CDM plus DBT was compared using the mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

A total of 100 breast cancer cases were identified. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.9160 (95% confidence interval 0.8779–0.9541) for CDM alone and 0.9376 (95% confidence interval 0.9019–0.9733) for CDM plus DBT. The cut-off values for both CDM alone and CDM plus DBT measurements were 4, with sensitivities of 61.0% (61/100) and 83.0% (83/100), respectively, and specificities of 99.1% (1054/1064) and 98.9% (1052/1064), respectively. CDM yielded 39 false-negative diagnoses, while CDM plus DBT identified breast cancer in 22 of those cases (56.4%).

Conclusion

The combination of DBT and CDM for the diagnosis of breast cancer in women with abnormal examination findings or clinical symptoms proved effective and should be used to improve the diagnostic performance of breast cancer examinations.

Keywords

Breast cancer Conventional digital mammography Digital breast tomosynthesis False negative Screening 

Abbreviations

BI-RADS

Breast imaging reporting and database system

CDM

Conventional digital mammography

DBT

Digital breast tomosynthesis

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L. Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology. 2012;26:471–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1982;69:349–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Gröntoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1:829–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988;297:943–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet. 1999;353:1903–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tabár 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas B, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berlière M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1675–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1147–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40:014301.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 Am J Roentgenol. 2014;2013:687–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, 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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. Virginia: Reston; 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takamoto Y, Tsunoda H, Kikuchi M, Hayashi N, Honda S, Koyama T, et al. Role of breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer for Japanese women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:3037–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:616–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:320–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, et al. Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology. 2016;281:54–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giess CS, Pourjabbar S, Ip IK, Lacson R, Alper E, Khorasani R. Comparing diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography in a hybrid screening environment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:929–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Powell JL, Hawley JR, Lipari AM, Yildiz VO, Erdal BS, Carkaci S. Impact of the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendations for short-term follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:302–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryoko Ohashi
    • 1
  • Michinobu Nagao
    • 1
  • Izumi Nakamura
    • 1
  • Takahiro Okamoto
    • 2
  • Shuji Sakai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear MedicineTokyo Women’s Medical UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Breast and Endocrine SurgeryTokyo Women’s Medical UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations