Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings

The main purpose was to compare breast cancer visibility in one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) to cancer visibility in one- or two-view digital mammography (DM). Thirty-six patients were selected on the basis of subtle signs of breast cancer on DM. One-view BT was performed with the same compression angle as the DM image in which the finding was least/not visible. On BT, 25 projections images were acquired over an angular range of 50 degrees, with double the dose of one-view DM. Two expert breast imagers classified one- and two-view DM, and BT findings for cancer visibility and BIRADS cancer probability in a non-blinded consensus study. Forty breast cancers were found in 37 breasts. The cancers were rated more visible on BT compared to one-view and two-view DM in 22 and 11 cases, respectively, (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Comparing one-view DM to one-view BT, 21 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). Comparing two-view DM to one-view BT, 12 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). The results indicate that the cancer visibility on BT is superior to DM, which suggests that BT may have a higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection.

[1]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[2]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[3]  D. Kopans,et al.  Three-Dimensional (3D) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) in the Early Diagnosis and Detection of Breast Cancer , 2006 .

[4]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[5]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[6]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. , 2001, Radiology.

[7]  Mari Varjonen,et al.  Three-Dimensional Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Early Diagnosis and Detection of Breast Cancer , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[8]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[9]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Adaptation of Image Quality Using Various Filter Setups in the Filtered Backprojection Approach for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[10]  R. L. Birdwell.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Pilot Observer Study , 2009 .

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

[12]  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.

[13]  E. Samei,et al.  Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. , 2007, Medical physics.

[14]  I Andersson,et al.  Number of projections in mammography: influence on detection of breast disease. , 1978, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[16]  D. Kopans,et al.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[17]  P. Skaane,et al.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. , 2007, Radiology.

[18]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[20]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[22]  I. Andersson,et al.  Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. , 1991, Radiology.

[23]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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

[25]  M Båth,et al.  Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[26]  E. Sickles.  The subtle and atypical mammographic features of invasive lobular carcinoma. , 1991, Radiology.