Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening.

Synthetic mammography (SM) consists of two-dimensional images reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data. Unlike standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM), SM does not require additional radiation exposure. SM is being introduced in breast imaging centers because early clinical data demonstrate that synthetic images are comparable to FFDM in cancer detection, positive predictive values, and recall rates. SM has completely replaced FFDM in some practices. Thus, an understanding of SM and its strengths and weaknesses compared with those of FFDM is essential. The artifacts of SM include blurring subcutaneous tissue, loss of resolution in the axilla on mediolateral oblique views, pseudocalcifications, and decreased resolution near foreign bodies (eg, biopsy markers). SM's strengths include a reduced radiation dose, shorter acquisition time compared with a combined FFDM/DBT screening examination (with potentially less motion artifact), and increased conspicuity of calcifications, spiculated margins, and architectural distortion. The weaknesses of SM include the potential for false positives due to pseudocalcifications and the difficulty in assessing for motion artifact. This article reviews SM and its role in screening and presents clinical cases to highlight SM's strengths, weaknesses, and artifacts. ©RSNA, 2017.

[1]  E. S. Amis,et al.  Evaluating an Image Gently and Image Wisely Campaign in a Multihospital Health Care System. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[2]  The choosing wisely campaign and its potential impact on diagnostic radiation burden. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[3]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial). , 2015, Radiology.

[4]  David Gur,et al.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[5]  David Gur,et al.  Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[6]  I Sechopoulos,et al.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. , 2015, Breast.

[7]  N Houssami,et al.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[9]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. , 2014, Radiology.

[10]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[11]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[12]  Paolo Peterlongo,et al.  Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[13]  K. Straif,et al.  Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  G. Baird,et al.  Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2015, Radiology.

[15]  James A Brink,et al.  Image Wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. , 2010, Radiology.

[16]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[17]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[18]  Carrie M. Rochman,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications. , 2015, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  Pragya A. Dang,et al.  Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. , 2014, Radiology.

[20]  S. Gavenonis,et al.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. , 2017, Radiology.

[21]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. , 2014, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[22]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. , 2016, Radiology.

[23]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[24]  Jung Hee Shin,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 , 2016, European Radiology.

[25]  Julia F. Barrett,et al.  Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.