Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Tomosynthesis: a Replacement or an Adjunct to Conventional Diagnostic Mammography?

  • Risk, Prevention, and Screening (TA Patel, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mammography is the current standard for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Conventional mammography, a 2D representation of a 3D structure, is limited in sensitivity and specificity by overlapping tissue. Digital breast tomosynthesis, or 3D mammography, overcomes this major limitation. Since it was approved in the US as an adjunct to 2D mammography in February 2011, digital breast tomosynthesis has become more widely available. Review of the limited world literature on digital breast tomosynthesis shows it to be a promising technique increasing the accuracy of mammography by improving detection, localization, and characterization of findings. Here we review the potential benefits and disadvantages of digital breast tomosynthesis for screening and diagnosis, and describe the latest advances in tomosynthesis technology, including synthesized 2D imaging that may render the conventional 2D mammogram obsolete.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. “Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.” Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–589.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multi-reader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton Jr R. Implementation of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Routine Screening Practice: An Observational Study. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Haas BM, Kaira V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Butler R, Hui A, Chen C, Durand M, Philpotts L. Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening on Diagnostic Work-up Patterns.Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 25–November 30, 2012 Chicago IL. rsna2012.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id = 12026179 Accessed February 7, 2014.

  7. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):W172–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, Henrichsen TL, Bendel EC, Brandt SR, et al. Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Conventional Diagnostic Mammography Views for Screening Recalls Without Calcifications? A Comparison Study in a Simulated Clinical Setting. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology. 2012;262(1):61–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266(1):89–95.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Spangler LM, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA. Addition of Tomosynthesis to Conventional Digital Mammography: Effect on Image Interpretation Time of Screening Examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, Cohen C, Hakim CM, Sumkin JH, et al. Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(4):450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):586–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):865–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1174–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalra V, Haas B, Butler R, Geisel J, Hooley R, Andrejeva L, et al. Time for Tomosynthesis: Screening Combined Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs. Full-Field Digital Mammography Interpretation Time in Clinical Practice: A Prospective Study of 300 Cases.Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting; November 25– November 30, 2012 Chicago IL. rsna2012.rsna.org/search/event_display.cfm?em_id = 12029139 Accessed February 10, 2014.

  18. Zuley ML, et al. “Comparison of Two-dimensional Synthesized Mammograms versus Original Digital Mammograms Alone and in Combination with Tomosynthesis Images.” Radiology. 2014. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131530

  19. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. “Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images.” Radiology. 2014. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131391

  20. Viala J, Gignier P, Perret B, Hovasse C, Hovasse D, Chancelier‐Galan M‐D, et al. Stereotactic Vacuum‐Assisted Biopsies on a Digital Breast 3D‐Tomosynthesis System. Breast J. 2013;19(1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf12/k122836.pdf

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Jaime L. Geisel and Liane E. Philpotts declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, PO Box 208042, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA

    Jaime L. Geisel & Liane E. Philpotts

Authors
  1. Jaime L. Geisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liane E. Philpotts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime L. Geisel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Geisel, J.L., Philpotts, L.E. Breast Tomosynthesis: a Replacement or an Adjunct to Conventional Diagnostic Mammography?. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 6, 132–137 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-014-0146-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-014-0146-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation