Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the recall rates of digital mammography (DM) and synthetic images after adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients with breast-conserving surgery.
Methods
From November 2015 to April 2017, 229 women with breast-conserving surgery due to breast cancer who underwent DBT after surgery were included (mean interval, 12.9 ± 1.4 months). All women underwent combo-mode DBT examinations including full-field DM, tomosynthesis, and reconstructed synthetic 2D images. Three board-certified breast radiologists reviewed the images sequentially: synthetic 2D+DBT and, 1 month later, DM and then DM+DBT. Recall rates and the abnormality type causing the recall were calculated and compared for each mammographic modality and breast density.
Results
Of the 229 patients included, 230 mammography images were reviewed. One patient (0.4%) developed locoregional recurrences during follow-up (mean duration, 25.8 ± 4.5 months). Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than for DM alone (4.1% (2.6–6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2–14.5), respectively; p < 0.001). Recall rates did not differ between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1% (2.6–6.2) vs. 2.9% (1.9–4.5), respectively; p = 0.234). Recall rates of synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively).
Conclusion
Adding DBT to synthetic 2D images or DM shows significant reduction in recall rates compared with DM alone for women who undergo breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer, regardless of mammographic density.
Key Points
• Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone (4.1% (2.6–6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2–14.5), respectively; p < 0.001).
• No significant differences were seen in recall rates between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1 (2.6–6.2) vs. 2.9 (1.9–4.5), respectively; p = 0.234).
• Reader-averaged recall rates after adding DBT to synthetic 2D or DM were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113
Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K et al (2018) Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 170:391–397
Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen AS et al (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology 287:787–794
Skaane P, Sebuodegard S, Bandos AI et al (2018) Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169:489–496
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56
Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 29:477–484
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553
Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W172–W176
Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 262:61–68
Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623
Bahl M, Lamb LR, Lehman CD (2017) Pathologic outcomes of architectural distortion on digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:1162–1167
Lamb LR, Bahl M, Hughes KS, Lehman CD (2018) Pathologic upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions on digital two-dimensional vs tomosynthesis mammography. J Am Coll Surg 226:858–867
American College of Radiology (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281:730–736
Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S et al (2011) Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast 20:50–55
Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S et al (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 287:37–46
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663
Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113
Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14
Wahab RA, Lee SJ, Zhang B, Sobel L, Mahoney MC (2018) A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening. Eur J Radiol 107:14–19
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hee Jung Moon.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors, Kyunghwa Han, PhD, a biostatistician, has significant statistical expertise.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Methodology
• retrospective
• diagnostic or prognostic study/observational/experimental
• performed at one institution
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(MP4 17812 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yoon, J.H., Kim, EK., Kim, G.R. et al. Comparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery. Eur Radiol 30, 6072–6079 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06992-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06992-6