Tomosynthesis: Should it Be Integrated into Screening and Clinical Routine Imaging?

  • Per Skaane


Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new and promising technique for breast imaging based on a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) platform. It was more than 15 years ago that this modality was first presented as a promising technique for breast imaging, having the potential to improve specificity and early detection of breast cancer [1]. DBT has been investigated in several clinical settings during the last few years [2–4]. Some studies focused on the great potential that tomosynthesis might have in breast cancer screening.


  1. 1.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening. The Breast 22:101–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis, and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 262:61–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL et al (2013) Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:291–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BI-RADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ et al (2013) Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol 68:1254–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E et al (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) 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 23:2061–2071.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zackrisson S; ECR Vienna (2013) Interim analysis; Malmø Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–1178.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dershaw DD (2013) Large core needle biopsy with tomosynthesis guidance: Another development in breast imaging technology. Breast J 19:1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Skaane
    • 1
  1. 1.Oslo University Hospital UllevaalUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations