Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

The limitations of mammography are well known and are partly related to the fact that with conventional imaging, the three-dimensional volume of the breast is imaged and presented in a two-dimensional format. Because normal breast tissue is similar in x-ray attenuation to some breast cancers, clinically relevant malignancies may be obscured by normal overlapping tissue. In addition, complex areas of normal tissue may be perceived as suspicious. The limitations of two-dimensional breast imaging lead to low sensitivity in detecting some cancers and high false-positive recall rates. Although mammographic screening has been shown to reduce breast cancer deaths by approximately 30%, controversy exists over when and how often screening mammography should occur. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly being implemented in breast imaging clinics around the world as early clinical data demonstrate that it may address some of the limitations of conventional mammography. With DBT, multiple low-dose x-ray images are acquired in an arc and reconstructed to create a three-dimensional image, thus minimizing the impact of overlapping breast tissue and improving lesion conspicuity. Early studies of screening DBT have shown decreased false-positive callback rates and increased rates of cancer detection (particularly for invasive cancers), resulting in increased sensitivity and specificity. In our clinical practice, we have completed more than 2 years of using two-view digital mammography combined with two-view DBT for all screening and select diagnostic imaging examinations (over 25,000 patients). Our experience, combined with previously published data, demonstrates that the combined use of DBT and digital mammography is associated with improved outcomes for screening and diagnostic imaging. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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

[2]  Andrew D A Maidment,et al.  Observation of super-resolution in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

[4]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[5]  David Gur,et al.  Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Noel T Brewer,et al.  Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  KathleenR. Brandt,et al.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Automated breast mass detection in 3D reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes: a featureless approach. , 2008, Medical physics.

[10]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images. , 2006, Medical physics.

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

[13]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. , 2008, Medical physics.

[15]  S. Rose,et al.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Unni Haakenaasen,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[17]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[18]  R A Schmidt,et al.  Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study. , 2008, Medical physics.

[19]  I Andersson,et al.  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. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[20]  Giuseppe Rescinito,et al.  One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis , 2012, European Radiology.

[21]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[22]  C. Waldherr,et al.  Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  John Brodersen,et al.  Long-Term Psychosocial Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammography , 2013, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[24]  Per Skaane,et al.  Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. , 2013, Breast.

[25]  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.

[26]  Federica Zanca,et al.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. , 2012, Radiology.

[27]  C P Lawinski,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Clinical radiology.

[28]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[29]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Sara Gavenonis,et al.  Calcifications in the Breast and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2011, The breast journal.

[31]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. , 2013, Radiology.

[32]  L. Tabár,et al.  Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. , 2011, Radiology.

[33]  David Gur,et al.  Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  J. Baker,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. , 2011, Academic radiology.

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

[36]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.