Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography.

Clinical studies using different imaging protocols to perform digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) were reviewed (2008-14) to assess interpretive accuracy. Descriptive pooled statistics were used to estimate and summarise accuracy measures for each type of imaging protocol in relation to that of two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM). In studies comparing multiple DBT imaging protocols, a trend of increased performance was often seen when including both the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views for DBT alone and even more so for DBT adjunct to FFDM. Overall, the average ΔAUC (%; sd) across studies for stand-alone DBT (relative to FFDM), in one and in two views, were 2.2 (± 3.7) and 5.9 (± 4.6), and when used together with FFDM, 3.9 (± 2.0) and 6.7 (± 0.9). With respect to individual studies, improvements in accuracy using DBT were present for different types of imaging protocols although the magnitude of the impact varied between studies, and some studies did not show significant improvements in comparison with FFDM. The most consistent effect of improvement in breast cancer detection was seen across studies for two-view DBT with FFDM. These summary findings may depend on the sampling constraints present in tomosynthesis imaging and on other factors discussed in this paper. In order to investigate these effects more thoroughly and how they might impact outcomes, comparative or randomized-controlled trials are warranted.

[1]  Sandra Eldridge,et al.  Double-blind randomised controlled trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham electrical stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence: CONtrol of Faecal Incontinence using Distal NeuromodulaTion (the CONFIDeNT trial). , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[2]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[5]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Radiation dosimetry in digital breast tomosynthesis: report of AAPM Tomosynthesis Subcommittee Task Group 223. , 2014, Medical physics.

[6]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Assessing Radiologist Performance and Microcalcifications Visualization Using Combined 3D Rotating Mammogram (RM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  Jules H Sumkin,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  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 , 2014, European Radiology.

[11]  I. Sechopoulos,et al.  A REVIEW OF DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS , 2014 .

[12]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study , 2014, European Radiology.

[13]  Kehu Yang,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis , 2014, European Radiology.

[14]  T. Svahn Letter to the Editor re: Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: A meta-analysis , 2014, European Radiology.

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

[16]  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.

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

[18]  C. Balleyguier,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study , 2013, European Radiology.

[19]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  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 , 2013, European Radiology.

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

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

[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]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  H Bosmans,et al.  Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  Yiheng Zhang,et al.  High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

[30]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography versus tomosynthesis: effect of radiologists' experience , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[31]  D. Chakraborty New developments in observer performance methodology in medical imaging. , 2011, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[32]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  The evidence base for breast cancer screening. , 2011, Preventive medicine.

[33]  Mark F McEntee,et al.  The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search. , 2011, Radiology.

[34]  Christer Ullberg,et al.  Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography , 2011, Acta radiologica.

[35]  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.

[36]  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.

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

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

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

[40]  Andrew P. Smith,et al.  Clinical Performance of Breast Tomosynthesis as a Function of Radiologist Experience Level , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[41]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[42]  N. Obuchowski One Less Bias to Worry About [letter] , 2004 .

[43]  N. Obuchowski One less bias to worry about. , 2004, Radiology.

[44]  David Gur,et al.  Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. , 2003, Radiology.

[45]  W. P. Evans,et al.  Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic characteristics and computer-aided detection. , 2002, Radiology.

[46]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine , 2002 .

[47]  N. Wald,et al.  UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening , 1995, BMJ.

[48]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[49]  H. Johnson,et al.  A comparison of 'traditional' and multimedia information systems development practices , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[50]  Jovan,et al.  Initial results , 2022 .