Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis

Simon, Katherine; Dodelzon, Katerina; Drotman, Michele; Levy, Allison; Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan; Askin, Gülce; Katzen, Janine

doi:10.2214/ajr.18.20520

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice 2-dimensional mammography vs synthetic 2-dimensional mammography; however, it is unlikely that our results would change with this distinction because studies to date have shown no difference in performance between DBT interpreted with DM vs synthetic mammography. 32,35…”

Section: Jama Network Open | Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice. OBJECTIVE To compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018. EXPOSURES Age, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Absolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection. RESULTS Of 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening (continued) Key Points Question Does screening performance Author affiliations and article information are listed at the end of this article.

show abstract

Section: Jama Network Open | Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results suggested comparable specificity with somewhat reduced sensitivity for the DBT/SM, compared to DBT/DM. Later clinical studies 10–15 have found little or no measurable difference in diagnostic accuracy, cancer detection rate, or sensitivity between DM and SM or between DM/DBT and SM/DBT. Despite these promising results, some studies also indicate inferior results for SM, either as a stand‐alone image or in combination with DBT 16–21 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact on lesion detection via a multi‐vendor study: A phantom‐based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to perform a test object-based comparison of the imaging performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic mammography (SM). Methods: Two test objects were used, the CDMAM and the L1-structured phantom. Small-detail detectability was assessed using CDMAM and the microcalcification simulating specks in the L1-structured background. Detection of spiculated and non-spiculated mass-like objects was assessed using the L1 phantom. Six different systems were included: Amulet Innovality (Fujifilm), Senographe Pristina (GEHC), 3Dimensions (Hologic), Giotto Class (IMS), Clarity 2D/3D (Planmed), and Mammomat Revelation (Siemens). Images were acquired under automatic exposure control (AEC) and at adjusted levels of AEC/2 and 2 × AEC level. Threshold gold thickness (T tr ) was established for the 0.13-mm-diameter CDMAM discs. Threshold diameters for the calcifications (d tr_c ), the spiculated masses (d tr_sm ), and for the non-spiculated masses (d tr_nsm ) were established. The threshold condition was defined as the thickness or diameter for a 62.5% correct score. Results: T tr for DM was generally superior to DBT, which in turn was superior to SM, but for most systems, these differences between modes were not significant. For L1, no significant differences in d tr_c were found between DM and DBT. The increase in d tr_c from DM to SM at AEC dose was 1%, 19%, 11%, 14%, 46%, and 27% for the Fujifilm, GEHC, Hologic, IMS, Planmed, and Siemens, respectively, indicating significantly poorer performance for all vendors except for Fujifilm, Hologic, and IMS. For both mass types, DBT performed better than SM, while SM showed no significant difference with DM (except for Fujifilm spiculated masses). The dose had an impact on small-detail detectability for both phantoms but did not influence the detection of either mass type. Conclusions: Both phantoms indicated potentially reduced small-detail detectability for SM versus DM and DBT and should therefore not be used in stand-alone mode. The L1 phantom demonstrated no significant difference in microcalcification detection between DM and DBT and also demonstrated the superiority of DBT, compared to DM for mass detection, for all six systems.

show abstract

“…The STEYX function gives a measure of the variability of the data in a given range. The degree of smoothness was calculated considering intensity levels between z-distance (16,24) mm since it corresponded to an area with high variation in intensity:…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, DBT images are displayed through a 2D slice-by-slice visualization [ 14 ], with the analysis done one slice at a time or sequentially as a continuous cine loop, leading to a time-consuming process. Two other new approaches have emerged for the visualization of DBT data: synthetic mammography based on DBT data [ 15 , 16 ] and thicker slabs obtained by combining several slices [ 17 , 18 ]. Although synthetic mammography is very useful for comparison with previous DM examinations, it still presents the disadvantages of a 2D visualization (tissue overlapping) [ 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of Breast Tomosynthesis Visualization through 3D Volume Rendering

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3D volume rendering may represent a complementary option in the visualization of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations by providing an understanding of the underlying data at once. Rendering parameters directly influence the quality of rendered images. The purpose of this work is to study the influence of two of these parameters (voxel dimension in z direction and sampling distance) on DBT rendered data. Both parameters were studied with a real phantom and one clinical DBT data set. The voxel size was changed from 0.085 × 0.085 × 1.0 mm3 to 0.085 × 0.085 × 0.085 mm3 using ten interpolation functions available in the Visualization Toolkit library (VTK) and several sampling distance values were evaluated. The results were investigated at 90º using volume rendering visualization with composite technique. For phantom quantitative analysis, degree of smoothness, contrast-to-noise ratio, and full width at half maximum of a Gaussian curve fitted to the profile of one disk were used. Additionally, the time required for each visualization was also recorded. Hamming interpolation function presented the best compromise in image quality. The sampling distance values that showed a better balance between time and image quality were 0.025 mm and 0.05 mm. With the appropriate rendering parameters, a significant improvement in rendered images was achieved.

show abstract

Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

The impact on lesion detection via a multi‐vendor study: A phantom‐based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography

Optimization of Breast Tomosynthesis Visualization through 3D Volume Rendering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About