Implementation Of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Research Articles

Meta-analysis: Architectural distortion and breast MRI.

The implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis has increased the detection of architectural distortion (AD). Managing this finding may be experienced as a clinical dilemma in daily practice. Breast Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-BMR) is a known modality in case of problem-solving tool for mammographic abnormalities. However, the data about AR and CE-BMR are scant. The purpose was to estimate the benefit of CE-BMR in the setting of architectural distortion detected mammographically through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were conducted in 2020. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, an analysis was performed using the chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant association between the result of the test (positive or negative) and the participant condition (malignant or non-malignant). Four studies were available. The negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.3% to 100%. The result of the chi-square indicated that there was significant association between the participant test result and the participant condition for the included publications (X(1,175)2=84.051, p =0.0001). The high NPV could allow for deferral of a biopsy in favor of a short-interval imaging follow-up in the setting of a negative CE-BMR.

Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging.

PurposeLimited work has been performed for the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer surveillance imaging. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between two different DBT implementations in breast cancer surveillance imaging, for patients with a personal history of breast cancer.MethodThe DBT implementations investigated were: (1) 2-view 2D digital mammography and 2-view DBT (2vDM&2vDBT) (2) 1-view (cranial-caudal) DM and 1-view (mediolateral-oblique) DBT (1vDM&1vDBT). Clinical performance of these two implementations was assessed retrospectively using observer studies with 118 sets of real patient images, from a single imaging centre, and six observers. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) using the Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) analysis were evaluated.ResultsResults suggest that the two DBT implementations are not significantly different in terms of sensitivity, specificity and AUC. When looking at the two main different lesion types, non-calcifications and calcifications, and two different density levels, no difference in the performance of the two DBT implementations was found.ConclusionsSince 1vDM&1vDBT exposes the patient to half the dose of 2vDM&2vDBT, it might be worth considering 1vDM&1vDBT in breast cancer surveillance imaging. However, larger studies are required to conclude on this matter.

Upright Tomosynthesis-guided Breast Biopsy: Tips, Tricks, and Troubleshooting.

The advent and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) have had a significant effect on breast cancer detection and image-guided breast procedures. DBT has been shown to improve the visualization of architectural distortions and noncalcified masses. With the incorporation of DBT imaging, biopsy of those findings seen only with DBT is feasible, and the need for localization and surgical excision to determine the pathologic diagnosis is avoided. The additional benefits of reduced procedural time, better localization, and increased technical success support the use of DBT for breast biopsy. DBT-guided biopsy can be performed with the patient prone or upright, depending on the table or unit used. Upright positioning enables improved patient comfort, particularly in patients who have restricted mobility, weight-related limitations, and/or difficulty lying prone for an extended period. Upright DBT-guided breast procedures require a cohesive team approach with overlapping radiologist and technologist responsibilities. Since this is a common breast procedure, the radiologist should be familiar with preprocedural considerations, patient preparations, and use of the biopsy equipment. The basic principles of upright DBT-guided breast biopsy are described in this comprehensive review. The various procedural components, including alternative approaches and techniques, are discussed. Tips and tricks for navigating the biopsy procedure to minimize complications, imaging examples of crucial steps, and supporting diagrams are provided. In addition, the challenges of performing upright DBT-guided biopsy, with troubleshooting techniques to ensure a successful procedure, are reviewed. ©RSNA, 2021.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been widely adopted in breast imaging in both screening and diagnostic settings. The benefits of DBT are well established. Compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM), DBT preferentially increases detection of invasive cancers without increased detection of in-situ cancers, maximizing identification of biologically significant disease, while mitigating overdiagnosis. The higher sensitivity of DBT for architectural distortion allows increased diagnosis of invasive cancers overall and particularly improves the visibility of invasive lobular cancers. Implementation of DBT has decreased the number of recalls for false-positive findings at screening, contributing to improved specificity at diagnostic evaluation. Integration of DBT in diagnostic examinations has also resulted in an increased percentage of biopsies with positive results, improving diagnostic confidence. Although individual DBT examinations have a longer interpretation time compared with that for DM, DBT has streamlined the diagnostic workflow and minimized the need for short-term follow-up examinations, redistributing much-needed time resources to screening. Yet DBT has limitations. Although improvements in cancer detection and recall rates are seen for patients in a large spectrum of age groups and breast density categories, these benefits are minimal in women with extremely dense breast tissue, and the extent of these benefits may vary by practice environment and by geographic location. Although DBT allows detection of more invasive cancers than does DM, its incremental yield is lower than that of US and MRI. Current understanding of the biologic profile of DBT-detected cancers is limited. Whether DBT improves breast cancer-specific mortality remains a key question that requires further investigation. ©RSNA, 2021.

Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community-based practice.

Incidence of interval cancers is an important outcome in assessing efficacy of screening. Our primary objective was to compare the incidence of interval cancers detected with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a large community health system. Our secondary objectives were to compare the patient and tumor characteristics of interval cancers, cancer detection rate, and recall rate. Interval cancers before and after implementation of DBT (2012-2014 DM group; 2016-2018 DBT group) were reviewed. Patient factors (age, race, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, known BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 genetic mutation, baseline mammogram, and presentation) and tumor characteristics (in situ versus invasive, grade, size, hormone receptor status, and nodal status) were compared with the chi-squared test or the MidP exact test. Rates (detection and recall) were compared using a z-score. The rates of interval cancers with DM (0.30 per 1000 [35/117099]) and DBT (0.33 per 1000 [40/119746]) were similar (P=.3). Proportion of node-positive interval cancers was lower in the DBT group (22.9% [8/35] vs 48% [15/31], p.01). Otherwise, the patient and tumor characteristics were similar. The cancer detection rate increased (5.9 per 1000 [709/119746] vs 3.5 per 1000 [411/117099], P=.0001), and the recall rate decreased with DBT (8.6% [10347/119746] versus 10.7% [12508/117099], (P<.0001). Although the cancer detection rate was higher with DBT, the rate of interval breast cancers was similar in both groups. Node-positive invasive interval cancers were decreased with DBT.

Comparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery.

To evaluate the recall rates of digital mammography (DM) and synthetic images after adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients with breast-conserving surgery. From November 2015 to April 2017, 229 women with breast-conserving surgery due to breast cancer who underwent DBT after surgery were included (mean interval, 12.9 ± 1.4 months). All women underwent combo-mode DBT examinations including full-field DM, tomosynthesis, and reconstructed synthetic 2D images. Three board-certified breast radiologists reviewed the images sequentially: synthetic 2D+DBT and, 1 month later, DM and then DM+DBT. Recall rates and the abnormality type causing the recall were calculated and compared for each mammographic modality and breast density. Of the 229 patients included, 230 mammography images were reviewed. One patient (0.4%) developed locoregional recurrences during follow-up (mean duration, 25.8 ± 4.5 months). Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than for DM alone (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2-14.5), respectively; p < 0.001). Recall rates did not differ between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 2.9% (1.9-4.5), respectively; p = 0.234). Recall rates of synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively). Adding DBT to synthetic 2D images or DM shows significant reduction in recall rates compared with DM alone for women who undergo breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer, regardless of mammographic density. • Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2-14.5), respectively; p < 0.001). • No significant differences were seen in recall rates between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1 (2.6-6.2) vs. 2.9 (1.9-4.5), respectively; p = 0.234). • Reader-averaged recall rates after adding DBT to synthetic 2D or DM were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively).

Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Are Initial Benefits Sustained?

Background Performance metrics with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are based on early experiences. There is limited research on whether the benefits of DBT are sustained. Purpose To determine whether improved screening performance metrics with DBT are sustained over time at the population level and after the first screening round at the individual level. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was conducted of screening mammograms that had been obtained before DBT implementation (March 2008 to February 2011, two-dimensional digital mammography [DM] group) and for 5 years after implementation (January 2013 to December 2017, DBT1-DBT5 groups, respectively). Patients who underwent DBT were also categorized according to the number of previous DBT examinations they had undergone. Performance metrics were compared between DM and DBT groups and between patients with no previous DBT examinations and those with at least one prior DBT examination by using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The DM group consisted of 99 582 DM examinations in 55 086 women (mean age, 57.3 years ± 11.6 [standard deviation]). The DBT group consisted of 205 048 examinations in 76 276 women (mean age, 58.2 years ± 11.2). There were no differences in the cancer detection rate (CDR) between DM and DBT groups (4.6-5.8 per 1000 examinations, P = .08 to P = .95). The highest CDR was observed with a woman's first DBT examination (6.1 per 1000 examinations vs 4.4-5.7 per 1000 examinations with at least one prior DBT examination, P = .001 to P = .054). Compared with the DM group, the DBT1 group had a lower abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.85; P < .001), which remained reduced in the DBT2, DBT3, and DBT5 groups (P < .001 to P = .02). The reduction in AIR was also sustained after the first examination (P < .001 to P = .002). Compared with the DM group, the DBT1 group had a higher specificity (AOR, 1.20; P < .001), which remained increased in DBT2, DBT3, and DBT5 groups (P < .001 to P = .004). The increase in specificity was also sustained after the first examination (P < .001 to P = .01). Conclusion The benefits of reduced false-positive examinations and higher specificity with screening tomosynthesis were sustained after the first screening round at the individual level. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Taourel in this issue.

Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round

Background Limited data exist beyond prevalence rounds of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. Purpose To compare DBT outcomes over multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis included 1 year of DM and 5 years of DBT screening (September 2011 to September 2016); 67 350 examinations were performed in 29 310 women. Recall rate (RR) percentage, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) percentage, positive predictive value of biopsies performed percentage, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Cancers diagnosed within 1 year of screening were captured by means of linkage to state cancer registry, and biologic characteristics were grouped by prognostic factors. Performance trends across DBT rounds were compared with those from DM rounds by using logistic regression to account for examinations in the same woman. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, breast density, baseline examination, and reader. Results There were 56 839 DBT and 10 511 DM examinations. The mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 56 years ±11 for the entire cohort, 55 years ±11 for the DBT group, and 57 years ±11 for the DM group. RRs were significantly lower for the DBT group (8.0%, 4522 of 56 839; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7, 8.2) than for the DM group (10.4%, 1094 of 10 511; 95% CI: 9.8, 11.0) (P < .001). CDRs were higher with DBT (6.0 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 5.4, 6.7 per 1000 women screened; 340 of 56 839) than with DM (5.1 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 3.9, 6.6 per 1000 women screened; 54 of 10 511) (P = .25), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both RR and CDR remained improved compared with DM for 5 years of DBT at the population level. False-negative rates were slightly lower for DBT (0.6 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.8 per 1000 women screened; 33 of 56 839) than DM (0.9 per 1000 women screened; 0.4, 1.6 per 1000 women screened; nine of 10 511) overall (P = .30), but the difference was not statistically significant. In adjusted analyses, RR, biopsy recommendation rates, and PPV1 were improved for DBT versus DM (P ≤ .001). Compared with DM, a higher proportion of DBT-detected cancers were invasive (70% [238 of 340] vs 68.5% [37 of 54]) and had poor prognoses characteristics (32.6% [76 of 233] vs 25.0% [nine of 36]). Conclusion Favorable outcomes with digital breast tomosynthesis screening were sustained over multiple years and rounds. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening was associated with detection of a higher proportion of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Heller in this issue.

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

AimDigital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), with or without Digital Mammography (DM) or Synthetic Mammography (SM), has been introduced or is under consideration for its introduction in breast cancer screening in several countries, as it has been shown that it has advantages over DM. Despite this there is no agreement on how to implement DBT in screening, and in many cases there is a lack of official guidance on the optimum usage of each commercially available system. The aim of this review is to carry out a manufacturer-specific summary of studies on the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening.MethodsAn exhaustive literature review was undertaken to identify clinical observer studies that evaluated at least one of five common metrics: sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, recall rate and cancer detection rate. Four common DBT implementation methods were discussed in this review: (1) DBT, (2) DM with DBT, (3) 1-view DBT with or without 1-view DM or 2-view DM and (4) DBT with SM.ResultsA summary of 89 studies, selected from a database of 677 studies, on the assessment of the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening is presented in tables and discussed in a manufacturer- and metric-specific approach. Much more studies were carried out using some DBT systems than others. For one implementation method of DBT by one manufacturer there is a shortage of studies, for another implementation there are conflicting results. In some cases, there is a strong agreement between studies, making the advantages and disadvantages of each system clear.ConclusionThe optimum implementation method of DBT in breast screening, in terms of diagnostic benefit and patient radiation dose, for one manufacturer does not necessarily apply to other manufacturers.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Implementation: Considerations for Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Bundled Payment Models

PurposeBundled payments have been touted as mechanisms to optimize quality and costs. A recent feasibility study evaluating bundled payments for screening mammography episodes predated widespread adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). We explore a similar model reflecting emerging acceptance of DBT in breast cancer screening. MethodsUsing 4-year data for 59,094 screening episodes from two large facilities within a large academic health system, we utilized published methodology to calibrate Medicare national allowable reference prices for women undergoing screening mammography before and after practice-wide implementation of DBT. ResultsExcluding DBT, Medicare-normalized bundled prices for traditional breast imaging 364 days downstream to screening mammography are extremely similar pre- and post-DBT implementation ($182.86 in 2013; $182.68 in 2015). The addition of DBT increased a DBT-inclusive bundled price by $53.16 (an amount lower than the $56.13 Medicare allowable fee for screening DBT) but was associated with significantly reduced recall rates (13.0% versus 9.4%; P < .0001). Without or with DBT, screening episode bundled prices remained sensitive to bundle-included services and varied little by patient age, race, or insurance status. ConclusionsPrior non-DBT approaches to bundled payment models for breast cancer screening remain viable as DBT becomes the standard of care, with bundle prices varying little by patient age, race, or insurance status. Higher DBT-inclusive bundled prices, however, highlight the need to explore societal costs more broadly (eg, reduced time away from work from fewer recalls) as bundled payment models evolve.

Changes in the Utilization of the BI-RADS Category 3 Assessment in Recalled Patients Before and After the Implementation of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

The purpose of this study was to compare the utilization of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 assessment in patients recalled from screening before and after the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). This was a retrospective review of 11,478 digital mammography (DM) screening exams and 9350 DM+DBT screening exams. Lesions assigned a BI-RADS category 3 at diagnostic exam were classified as architectural distortions, asymmetries, calcifications, masses, and "other" and followed for a minimum of 2 years. The addition of DBT to screening DM resulted in a 30.4% relative reduction (10.3 women per 1000) in the utilization of BI-RADS category 3 compared to screening DM alone (3.4% for DM versus 2.4% for DM+DBT; p < 0.0001). There was a statistically significant change in the distribution of category 3 findings with DM+DBT characterized by an increase in calcifications and architectural distortions and a decrease in asymmetries. There was no change in category 3 assessment for masses. Although both cohorts had delayed cancer detection rates that exceeded the recommended 2% benchmark (2.3% for DM and 3.6% for DM+DBT), when limited to invasive malignancies, the delayed cancer detection rates were below the 2% benchmark (1.5% for DM and 0.9% for DM+DBT). Screening DM+DBT resulted in a 9.2% relative reduction in recall rate compared to DM (13.0% for DM versus 11.8% for DM+ DBT, p = 0.012). Implementation of DBT in the screening population decreased the overall number of patients assigned to short-term follow-up by 10.3 per 1000 women while maintaining comparable rates of delayed cancer detection.

Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Changes to mammography practice, including revised Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification guidelines and implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), may impact clinical breast density assessment. We investigated temporal trends in clinical breast density assessment among 2 990 291 digital mammography (DM) screens and 221 063 DBT screens interpreted by 722 radiologists from 144 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. After age-standardization, 46.3% (95% CI = 44.1% to 48.6%) of DM screens were assessed as dense (heterogeneously/extremely dense) during the BI-RADS 4th edition era (2005-2013), compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) during the 5th edition era (2014-2016) (P = .93 from two-sided generalized score test). Among DBT screens in the BI-RADS 5th edition era, 45.8% (95% CI = 42.0% to 49.7%) were assessed as dense (P = .77 from two-sided generalized score test) compared to 46.5% (95% CI = 43.8% to 49.1%) dense on DM in BI-RADS 5th edition era. Results were similar when examining all four density categories and age subgroups. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers may reasonably expect stable density distributions across screened populations despite changes to the BI-RADS guidelines and implementation of DBT.

Utility of Breast MRI for Further Evaluation of Equivocal Findings on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of MRI as a problem-solving tool for equivocal findings on diagnostic digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Breast MRI examinations performed from March 2011 to November 2014 were retrospectively reviewed to identify those examinations that were performed to further assess equivocal findings on combined DM and DBT (DM/DBT) examinations. All patients underwent diagnostic ultrasound in conjunction with their DM/DBT examination. Imaging reports were retrospectively reviewed for BI-RADS findings and assessments of diagnostic DM/DBT and diagnostic MRI examinations. A review of the electronic medical records provided information on demographic data, cancer diagnoses, and pathologic findings. Differences in the positive predictive values and negative predictive values of DM/DBT and MRI were compared using a generalized estimating equation for correlated binary data. Of 5330 MRI examinations performed during the study, 67 (1%) were performed for evaluation of an equivocal finding, including 27 asymmetries (40%), 16 focal asymmetries (24%), five masses (7%), and 19 architectural distortion (28%). MRI correlates were identified in 22 of 67 examinations (33%). Biopsies yielded a cancer diagnosis for five of 67 patients (7%). For MRI, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 19% and 98%, respectively, whereas for DM/DBT they were 6% and 90%, respectively (p = 0.009 and p = 0.059, respectively). The frequency of recommendations for breast MRI to evaluate equivocal findings decreased exponentially in the 3 years after DBT implementation. As clinical implementation of DBT becomes increasingly widespread, breast radiologists need an algorithm for addressing the small number of inconclusive findings that remain equivocal despite thorough DM/DBT and ultrasound examinations. Breast MRI is a useful adjunctive tool for these selected cases.

Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

To analyse which mammographic and tumour characteristics led to concordant versus discordant recalls at blinded double reading to further optimise our breast cancer screening programme. We included a consecutive series of 99,013 screening mammograms obtained between July 2013 and January 2015. All mammograms were double read in a blinded fashion. Discordant readings were routinely recalled without consensus or arbitration. During the 2-year follow-up, relevant data of the recalled women were collected. We compared mammographic characteristics, screening outcome and tumour characteristics between concordant and discordant recalls. There were 2,543 concordant recalls (71.4%) and 997 discordant recalls (28.0%). The positive predictive value of a concordant recall was significantly higher (23.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001). The proportion of BI-RADS 0 was significantly higher in the discordant recall group (75.7% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001). Discordant recalls were more often an asymmetry or architectural distortion (21.8% vs. 13.2% and 9.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the distribution of DCIS and invasive cancers and tumour characteristics were comparable for the two groups, except for a more favourable tumour grade in the discordant recall group (54.7% vs. 39.9% grade I tumours, p = 0.022). Screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. The higher proportion of asymmetries and architectural distortions in this group provide a possible target for improving screening programmes by additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. • With blinded double reading of screening mammograms, screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. • The proportions of asymmetries and architectural distortions are higher in case of a discordant reading. • Possible improvement strategies could target additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes.

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis - 4 year experience and comparison with national data

BackgroundTo determine if mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), leads to superior performance in screening for breast cancer compared to digital mammography (DM) alone. MethodsWe retrospectively collected data from A) the results of population-based mammography-screening provided by the National Cancer Registry in Taiwan, and B) the results from all screening mammography performed with DBT from 2012 through 2015 at Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (VGHKS) since the institution of DBT at the end of 2011. This was compared data from 3 years with DM performed prior to DBT implementation. We calculated the results of medical audit of VGHKS and compared this with national data. Fisher's exact test is applied. ResultsVGHKS data demonstrated a higher cancer detection rate (CDR) and positive predictive value 1 (PPV 1) than the national average. Most prominently in the year 2014, our CDR was 120% better than that of the national average. CDR ranged from 6.3 to 8.1‰ prior to the introduction of DBT, and following DBT implementation this improved to 8.5–11.4‰, reflecting a mean increase of 32.2%. Early cancer detection was 50% higher and node negative rate was 25% higher than the national average of latest year. A 17.8% reduction in recall rate (RR) was achieved due to a decrease in unnecessary recall. ConclusionThere was a 32.2% increase in CDR and a 17.8% decrease in RR when DBT was used as an adjunct to DM, as compared to DM alone. CDRs were approximately twofold better than national average data. DBT was more effective at detecting cancer in ductal carcinoma in situ and stage 1.

Issues to consider before implementing digital breast tomosynthesis into a breast imaging practice.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to discuss issues surrounding the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) into a clinical breast imaging practice and assist radiologists, technologists, and administrators who are considering the addition of this new technology to their practices. CONCLUSION. When appropriate attention is given to image acquisition, interpretation, storage, technologist and radiologist training, patient selection, billing, radiation dose, and marketing, implementation of DBT into a breast imaging practice can be successful.

Screening for dense breasts: digital breast tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a recent imaging technology that was developed to address the limitations of conventional 2D mammography. The limitations of standard mammography are well known and include reduced sensitivity in dense breasts. Clinical research studies of DBT and the implementation of DBT have revealed that DBT has potential benefits for evaluating patients with dense breasts. This article will discuss the benefits and limitations of DBT as a screening alternative for women with dense breasts. CONCLUSION. Studies to date have revealed that the use of DBT reduces recall rates and increases cancer detection rates. This has been demonstrated with the use of DBT for both screening and diagnostic purposes, as well as with imaging dense breasts. DBT has the ability to reduce breast tissue overlap, thus potentially revealing lesions that would otherwise have been missed. The limitations of DBT include longer interpretation times, higher costs, and increased radiation dose. These limitations present challenges that radiologists must consider before DBT implementation.

TU‐C‐210A‐02: Recent Advances in Breast Tomosynthesis

This presentation in the symposium is focused on the recent advances in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). DBT is a three‐dimensional (3D) x‐ray breast imaging technique. Several projection images of the breast are obtained from different angles, and image reconstruction is used to generate cross‐sectional slices (with 1 mm thickness) that are parallel to the detector. Several DBT prototype systems have been developed by different manufacturers through modification of screening full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) systems. The x‐ray tube gantry typically rotates around the compressed breast with a limited angular range (15 to 60 degrees) and acquires a limited number of images (11 to 49). In this presentation, an overview of the following aspects of DBT will be provided: 1. Different approaches to system implementation of DBT, and their advantages and limitations; 2. Comparison of different image reconstruction methods, including filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction; 3. Special considerations for DBT compared to conventional projection mammography: scattered radiation, x‐ray spectrum and detector performance; 4. Methods for the evaluation and optimization of DBT image quality; 5. Clinical results of breast cancer detection using DBT and its comparison with projection mammography; 6. Combination of DBT with other 3D imaging methods for multi‐modality breast imaging applications.

Over-diagnosis in screening by mammography: A follow-up of the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial, MMST

Breast screening with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) fails to detect 15–30% of cancers. This figure is higher for women with dense breasts. A new tomographic technique in mammography has been developed — digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) — which allows images to be viewed in sections through the breast and has the potential to improve cancer detection rates. Results from retrospective reading studies comparing DBT with FFDM have been largely favourable with improvement in sensitivity and specificity. Increases in diagnostic accuracy have been reported as being independent of breast density; however there are mixed reports regarding the detection of microcalcification. Prospective screening studies using DBT with FFDM have demonstrated increased rates in cancer detection compared with FFDM alone. A reduction in false-positive recall rates has also been shown. Screening with the addition of DBT would approximately double radiation dose; however a simulated FFDM image can be generated from a DBT scan. The combination of simulated FFDM images and DBT is being evaluated within several studies and some positive results have been published. Interval cancer rates for the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) demonstrate the limited sensitivity of FFDM in cancer detection. DBT has the potential to increase sensitivity and decrease false-positive recall rates. It has approval for screening and diagnostics in several countries; however, there are issues with DBT as a screening tool including additional reading time, IT storage and connectivity, over-diagnosis, and cost effectiveness. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness trials are needed before the implementation of DBT in NHSBSP can be considered.