Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density

AbstractObjectivesTo compare the average glandular dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus cranio-caudal (CC) digital mammography (DM) with two-view DM, and to evaluate the correlation of AGD with breast thickness and density.MethodsMLO and CC DM and DBT images of both breasts were obtained in 149 subjects. AGDs of DBT and DM per exposure were recorded, and their correlation with breast thickness and density were evaluated. Paired data of MLO DBT plus CC DM and two-view DM were reviewed for presence of malignancy in a jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) method.ResultsThe AGDs of both DBT and DM, and differences in AGD between DBT and DM (ΔAGD), were correlated with breast thickness and density. The average JAFROC figure of merit (FOM) was significantly higher on the combined technique than two-view DM (P = 0.005). In dense breasts, the FOM and sensitivity of the combined technique was higher than that of two-view DM (P = 0.003) with small ΔAGD.ConclusionsMLO DBT plus CC DM provided higher diagnostic performance than two-view DM in dense breasts with a small increase in AGD.Key Points• DBT has higher diagnostic performance and potential to overcome limitations of DM. • Dose differences (DBT-DM, ΔAGD) were inversely correlated with breast thickness and density. • Figure of merit of MLO-DBT/CC-DM was higher than that of two-view DM. • In dense breasts, MLO-DBT/CC-DM provides better diagnostic performance with a small AGD increase.

[1]  S Field,et al.  An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[2]  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.

[3]  L. Tabár,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 , 1985, The Lancet.

[4]  Giuseppe Rescinito,et al.  Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software , 2012, European Radiology.

[5]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[6]  Tao Wu,et al.  A new generation FFDM/tomosynthesis fusion system with selenium detector , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[7]  Gunnar Eklund,et al.  Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985 .

[8]  R. Edward Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography , 2013, European Radiology.

[9]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study , 2010, European Radiology.

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

[11]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  H. Weedon-Fekjær,et al.  Effectiveness of population‐based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years , 2012, Cancer.

[15]  P. Narula.  MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY AND THE RISK AND DETECTION OF BREAST CANCER , 2016 .

[16]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[17]  T M Svahn,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[18]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[19]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. , 2008, Radiology.

[20]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis , 2013, European Radiology.

[21]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer , 2005 .

[24]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography. , 2010, Medical physics.

[26]  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.

[27]  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.

[28]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[29]  L. Tabár,et al.  Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening , 2003, The Lancet.

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

[31]  M J Yaffe,et al.  The myth of the 50-50 breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[33]  Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results , 2009, European Radiology.

[34]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

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

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