The main purpose was to compare breast cancer visibility in one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) to cancer visibility in one- or two-view digital mammography (DM). Thirty-six patients were selected on the basis of subtle signs of breast cancer on DM. One-view BT was performed with the same compression angle as the DM image in which the finding was least/not visible. On BT, 25 projections images were acquired over an angular range of 50 degrees, with double the dose of one-view DM. Two expert breast imagers classified one- and two-view DM, and BT findings for cancer visibility and BIRADS cancer probability in a non-blinded consensus study. Forty breast cancers were found in 37 breasts. The cancers were rated more visible on BT compared to one-view and two-view DM in 22 and 11 cases, respectively, (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Comparing one-view DM to one-view BT, 21 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). Comparing two-view DM to one-view BT, 12 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). The results indicate that the cancer visibility on BT is superior to DM, which suggests that BT may have a higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection.

ObjectiveTo assess the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening.MethodsThe Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective population-based one-arm study with a planned inclusion of 15000 participants; a random sample of women aged 40–74 years eligible for the screening programme. This is an explorative analysis of the first half of the study population (n = 7500). Participants underwent one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM), with independent double reading and scoring. Primary outcome measures were detection rate, recall rate and positive predictive value (PPV). McNemar's test with 95 % confidence intervals was used.ResultsBreast cancer was found in sixty-eight women. Of these, 46 cases were detected by both modalities, 21 by DBT alone and one by DM alone. The detection rate for one-view DBT was 8.9/1000 screens (95 % CI 6.9 to 11.3) and 6.3/1000 screens (4.6 to 8.3) for two-view DM (p < 0.0001). The recall rate after arbitration was 3.8 % (3.3 to 4.2) for DBT and 2.6 % (2.3 to 3.0) for DM (p < 0.0001). The PPV was 24 % for both DBT and DM.ConclusionOur results suggest that one-view DBT might be feasible as a stand-alone screening modality.Key Points• One-view DBT as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality has not been investigated.• One-view DBT increased the cancer detection rate significantly.• The recall rate increased significantly but was still low.• Breast cancer screening with one-view DBT as a stand-alone modality seems feasible.

No abstract

The study indicates that BT is superior to DM in the assessment of breast tumor size and stage.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dose reduction in digital mammography on the detection of two lesion types -malignant masses and clusters of microcalcifications. Two freeresponse observer studies were performed -one for each lesion type. Ninety screening images were retrospectively selected; each image was originally acquired under automatic exposure conditions, corresponding to an average glandular dose of 1.3 mGy for a standard breast (50 mm compressed breast thickness with 50% glandularity). For each study, one to three simulated lesions were added to each of forty images (abnormals) while fifty were kept without lesions (normals). Two levels of simulated system noise were added to the images yielding two new image sets, corresponding to simulated dose levels of 50% and 30% of the original images (100%). The manufacturer's standard display processing was subsequently applied to all images. Four radiologists experienced in mammography evaluated the images by searching for lesions and marking and assigning confidence levels to suspicious regions. The search data was analyzed using jackknife free-response (JAFROC) methodology. For the detection of masses, the mean figure-of-merit (FOM) averaged over all readers was 0.74, 0.71, and 0.68 corresponding to dose levels 100%, 50% and 30%, respectively. These values were not statistically different from each other (F = 1.67, p = 0.19) but showed a decreasing trend. In contrast, in the microcalcification study the mean FOM was 0.93, 0.67, and 0.38 for the same dose levels and these values were all significantly different from each other (F = 109.84, p < 0.0001). The results indicate that lowering the present dose level by a factor of two compromised the detection of microcalcifications but had a weaker effect on mass detection.

No abstract

The results of this study indicate that low-signal lesions larger than 1.0 mm may be more visible in BT compared to DM, whereas 0.2 mm lesions may be better visualized with DM compared to BT, when compared at equal dose.

In agreement with previous investigations, masses of size 8 mm can be detected with less contrast in BT than in DM indicating improved detection performance for BT. However, for the investigated microcalcifications, the results of this study indicate potentially worse performance for BT than for DM at the same dose level.