Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Decade of Practice in Review

被引:5
作者
Monticciolo, Debra L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Scott & White Healthcare, Cent Texas, 2401 South,31st St,MS-01-W256, Temple, TX 76508 USA
关键词
Breast cancer; breast cancer screening; digital breast tomosynthesis; interval cancer rate; synthesized mammography; SYNTHETIC 2D MAMMOGRAPHY; SYNTHESIZED 2-DIMENSIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER-DETECTION; INTERVAL; TRIAL; IMPLEMENTATION; PERFORMANCE; RECALL; WOMEN; RATES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2022.08.005
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), introduced in 2011, was thought to be a further evolution of full -field digital mammography (DM). Assessing DBT presents unique challenges. The widely variable settings in which DBT has been applied affect outcomes. In initial studies comparing DM-DBT with DM, outcomes for cancer detection rates (CDRs) and recall rates have been mixed. CDR improves most in biennial screening settings, with little or no improvement in annual screening. Recall rates improve most where rates are highest; no improvement is seen in European prospective trials. Adoption of synthesized mammography (SM), derived from the tomosynthesis acquisition and intended to avoid the DM exposure, has been slow because of inferior image quality. Despite this, SM-DBT has shown equivalent outcomes measures to DM-DBT. An important exception is the To-Be randomized controlled trial, which showed that SM-DBT was equivalent to DM in CDR, not better. To date, interval cancer rate, a surrogate for mortality reduction, has not been shown to be improved by DBT. We may have reached the limit of morphological assessment in x-ray technique. Its use may evolve with advancements in technology as use of contrast agents expands, algorithms for SM progress, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy proliferates. Our expectations of the contributions of DBT will evolve as well.
引用
收藏
页码:127 / 133
页数:7
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography [J].
Aase, H. S. ;
Danielsen, A. S. ;
Hoff, S. R. ;
Holen, A. S. ;
Haldorsen, I. S. ;
Hovda, T. ;
Hanestad, B. ;
Sandvik, C. K. ;
Hofvind, S. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 141
[2]   A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial [J].
Aase, Hildegunn S. ;
Holen, Asne S. ;
Pedersen, Kristin ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Haldorsen, Ingfrid S. ;
Sebuodegard, Sofie ;
Hanestad, Berit ;
Hofvind, Solveig .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (03) :1175-1186
[3]   Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Abdullah, Peri ;
Alabousi, Mostafa ;
Ramadan, Sherif ;
Zawawi, Ismaiel ;
Zawawi, Mayar ;
Bhogadi, Yasovineeth ;
Freitas, Vivianne ;
Patlas, Michael N. ;
Alabousi, Abdullah .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 217 (02) :314-324
[4]   Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Alabousi, Mostafa ;
Wadera, Akshay ;
Al-Ghita, Mohammed Kashif ;
Al-Ghetaa, Rayeh Kashef ;
Salameh, Jean-Paul ;
Pozdnyakov, Alex ;
Zha, Nanxi ;
Samoilov, Lucy ;
Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad ;
Sadeghirad, Behnam ;
Freitas, Vivianne ;
McInnes, Matthew D. F. ;
Alabousi, Abdullah .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2021, 113 (06) :680-690
[5]   Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis [J].
Bahl, Manisha ;
Mercaldo, Sarah ;
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Lehman, Constance D. .
RADIOLOGY, 2021, 298 (02) :308-316
[6]   Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers [J].
Bahl, Manisha ;
Gaffney, Shannon ;
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Lowry, Kathryn P. ;
Dang, Pragya A. ;
Lehman, Constance D. .
RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (01) :49-57
[7]   Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue [J].
Bakker, Marije F. ;
de Lange, Stephanie V. ;
Pijnappel, Ruud M. ;
Mann, Ritse M. ;
Peeters, Petra H. M. ;
Monninkhof, Evelyn M. ;
Emaus, Marleen J. ;
Loo, Claudette E. ;
Bisschops, Robertus H. C. ;
Lobbes, Marc B. I. ;
de Jong, Matthijn D. F. ;
Duvivier, Katya M. ;
Veltman, Jeroen ;
Karssemeijer, Nico ;
de Koning, Harry J. ;
van Diest, Paul J. ;
Mali, Willem P. T. M. ;
van den Bosch, Maurice A. A. J. ;
Veldhuis, Wouter B. ;
van Gils, Carla H. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (22) :2091-2102
[8]   Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation [J].
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Gentilini, Maria A. ;
De Nisi, Martina ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Sabatino, Vincenzo ;
Luparia, Andrea ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
BREAST, 2020, 50 :135-140
[9]   Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study [J].
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Ostillio, Livio ;
Tuttobene, Paolina ;
Luparia, Andrea ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (08) :1105-1113
[10]   Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer [J].
Chikarmane, Sona A. ;
Cochon, Laila R. ;
Khorasani, Ramin ;
Sahu, Sonia ;
Giess, Catherine S. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 217 (03) :587-594