Advertisement

Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set?

  • Mark C. Murphy
  • Louise Coffey
  • Ailbhe C. O’Neill
  • Cecily Quinn
  • Ruth Prichard
  • Sorcha McNally
Original Article

Abstract

Aims and objectives

The aim of this study was to determine if the synthetic C view acquired at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would give adequate information to confirm a malignancy and could obviate the need to review all the tomosynthesis image data set.

Methods

All patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer recalled from screening mammograms between May and September 2016 were included for review. For each patient, the screening 2D mammogram, the synthetic C view, and the DBT images were reviewed by three breast radiologists and each assigned a BIRADS code. Any discrepancies were reviewed and resolved by consensus.

Results

A total of 92 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in this time period. Fourteen were excluded because they did not have DBT performed. Five women were recalled for evaluation of two lesions. In total, 83 lesions were assessed. In 27 cases, the BIRADS code remained unchanged in the three modalities. In 16 cases, the lesions appeared more concerning on C view and DBT that on the original mammogram but were not definitive for malignancy (BIRADS 4). In 29 cases, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned on C view and tomosynthesis but not on 2D. For 11 lesions, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned only on DBT. Four women had BIRADS 5 lesions seen on both the C view and DBT that were not seen on the screening 2D mammogram. One was multifocal.

Conclusion

While the synthetic C view gives additional information when compared to a screening 2D mammogram, the full DBT tomosynthesis data set needs to be reviewed to diagnose a breast malignancy.

Keywords

Breast cancer Mammography Synthetic view Tomosynthesis 

References

  1. 1.
    The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. Lancet, 2012. 380(9855):1778–86. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0
  2. 2.
    Tabár L, Vitak B et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260(3):658–663.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110469 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Int Med 138(3):168–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breast screening review—a radiologist’s perspective. M.J. Michell. Br J Radiol, 2012. pp. 845–847Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin J Radiol 71(2):141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Svahn H, Sechopoulos M (2015) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast 24(2):93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelson JS, Wells JR et al (2016) How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys 43(5):2538–2547.  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4947293 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zuley M, Guo B et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271(3):664–671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhl C, Schrading S et al (2013) Accelerated breast MRI for breast cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 31(26_suppl):1.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.26_suppl.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark C. Murphy
    • 1
  • Louise Coffey
    • 1
  • Ailbhe C. O’Neill
    • 1
  • Cecily Quinn
    • 1
  • Ruth Prichard
    • 1
  • Sorcha McNally
    • 1
  1. 1.National Breast Screening Programme, Merrion UnitSt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations