Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis

Cohen, Ethan O.; Weaver, Olena; Tso, Hilda H.; Gerlach, Karen E.; Leung, Jessica W.T.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.016

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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

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

show abstract

“…However, since the breast gland tissue is highly radiosensitive [17], dosimetry monitoring of DBT procedures is essential to ensure the best costbenefit compromise of this technique. Given that DBT is also employed for breast cancer screening [18][19][20][21], a practical operational dosimetry index should be adopted in order to guarantee a fast and reliable monitoring of the absorbed dose. The current approach adopted for evaluating the absorbed dose in DBT procedures is based on the calculation of the AGD through the method by Dance et al [10][11][12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index for digital breast tomosynthesis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To propose a practical and simple method to individually evaluate the average absorbed dose for digital breast tomosynthesis. Methods: The method is based on the estimate of incident air kerma (k a,i) on the breast surface. An analytical model was developed to calculate the k a,i from the tube voltage, tube load, breast thickness, x-ray tube yield, and anode-filter combination. A homogeneous phantom was employed to simulate the breast in experimental measurements and to assess the dose-depth relationship. The k a,i values were employed to calculate the "average absorbed breast dose" (2ABD) index. Four mammographic units were used to develop and test our method under many conditions close to clinical settings. The average glandular dose (AGD) calculated following the method described by Dance et al., and the 2ABD computed through our method (i.e., from the exposure parameters) were compared in a number of conditions. Results: A good agreement was obtained between the k a,i computed through our model and that measured under different clinical conditions: discrepancies < 6% were found in all conditions. 2ABD matches with a good accuracy the AGD for a 100% glandular-breast: the minimum, maximum, and mean differences were < 0.1%, 7%, and 2.4%, respectively; the discrepancies increase with decreasing breast glandularity. Conclusions: The proposed model, based on only few exposure parameters, represents a simple way to individually calculate an index, 2ABD, which can be interpreted as the average absorbed dose in a homogeneous phantom, approximating a 100% glandular breast. The method could be easily implemented in any mammographic device performing DBT.

show abstract

“…The informative value of such examination was higher than of targeted mammography [23]. Cohen et al have evaluated the effectiveness of three BC screening modes: tomosynthesis with a synthesized 2D-image, tomosynthesis in combination with conventional digital mammography, and traditional digital mammography [17]. About 800,000 mammograms were evaluated, 3,466 malignant tumors were diagnosed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital tomosynthesis in breast cancer diagnostics (literature review)

Suleimenova¹,

Ainakulova

Zholdybay

2021

Onkol. radiol. Kaz.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relevance: Breast cancer is the most common malignant neoplasm among wom-en in our country. Mammography is currently the method of choice in breast can-cer diagnostics. However, it has limitations associated with the imposition of breast tissue layers, which makes it difficult to identify lesions and leads to a mis-diagnosis. Breast tomosynthesis is a tomographic technique in which the effect of tissue superimposition is significantly reduced due to layer-by-layer scanning. The purpose of this study was to review the capacity of tomosynthesis in the di-agnosis of breast cancer. Results: The combination of tomosynthesis with a synthesized image is the best technology for screening because it offers the best combination of efficiency and radiation dose. Advantages include greater diagnostic accuracy due to both in-creased sensitivity and specificity, and a significantly less need for additional mammography projections (targeted mammography, targeted mammography with magnification). Conclusions: Tomosynthesis as a diagnostic method significantly exceeds the method of mammography. The higher informative value of the results provided by tomosynthesis reduces the frequency of false-negative and false-positive radio-logical conclusions.

show abstract

Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index for digital breast tomosynthesis

Digital tomosynthesis in breast cancer diagnostics (literature review)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About