Comparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery

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 to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    American College of Radiology (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hee Jung Moon.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, J.H., Kim, E., 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 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06992-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Breast
  • Mammography
  • Digital breast tomosynthesis
  • Breast-conserving surgery
  • Surveillance