Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising technique for breast imaging based on a digital mammography (DM) platform. In tomosynthesis, the x-ray tube moves through a proscribed arc and several low-dose projection images are acquired in the same projections as conventional mammography. The great advantage of DBT is elimination of superimposed tissue and improved detection of lesions otherwise hidden by dense parenchyma and improvement of lesion interpretation. DBT has the potential to overcome major limitations of conventional mammography. Published studies have used a combination of DM and DBT. The solution to the radiation dose challenge when using the combo mode of 2D+3D is synthetic 2D images. Studies using DBT in screening have demonstrated lower recall rates and significantly higher cancer detection rates as compared with conventional mammography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck N, Butler R, Durand M et al (2013) One-view versus two-view tomosynthesis: a comparison of breast cancer visibility in the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views. ARRS Annual Meeting Washington 2013, Scientific session 27. p 177

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bonafede MM, Kalra VB, Miller JD et al (2015) Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 7:53–63

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL et al (2013) Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:291–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL et al (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R (2014) Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci 4:9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA (2015) Preoperative tomosynthesis-guided needle localization of mammographically and sonographically occult breast lesions. Radiology 275:377–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SI et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277:697–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J et al (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:172–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houssami N, Zackrisson S (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis: the future of mammography screening or much ado about nothing? Expert Rev Med Devices 10:583–585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices 12:377–379. Early online 1–3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E et al (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB (2014) A new era in mammography screening. Radiology 271:629–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al (2015) Breast-cancer screening – viewpoint of the IARC working group. N Engl J Med 372:2353–2358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O et al (2015) Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274:772–780

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL et al (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LÃ¥ng K, Andersson I, Zackrisson S (2014) Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography – a side-by-side review of discrepant cases. Br J Radiol. doi:10.1259/bjr.20140080

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • LÃ¥ng K, Andersson I, Rosso A et al (2015) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmø breast tomosynthesis screening trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju316

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: Initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2014) Breast cancer screening. Should tomosynthesis replace digital mammography? JAMA 311:2488–2489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 multicentre, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA et al (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J. doi:10.1111/tbj.12446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 274:654–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013a) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013b) 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. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) 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. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I et al (2014) Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Svahn TM, Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncv078

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevaal, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, Oslo, 0407, Norway

    Per Skaane

Authors
  1. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Skaane .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy

    Alberto Tagliafico

  2. School of PublicHealth, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Nehmat Houssami

  3. Dept of Diagnostic Senology, San Martino Hospital, Genova, Italy

    Massimo Calabrese

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skaane, P. (2016). Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. In: Tagliafico, A., Houssami, N., Calabrese, M. (eds) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28631-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28631-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28629-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28631-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation