Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Combinations of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-field Digital Mammography for Different Density Types of Breasts

Author(s): Qiong Chen*, Xing Pan, Junfeng Xu, Weifeng Ying, Yuyu Hou, Ming Lu, Dongqin An and Weijun Peng

Volume 20, 2024

Published on: 11 April, 2023

Article ID: e280323215029 Pages: 10

DOI: 10.2174/1573405620666230328085655

open_access

Open Access Journals Promotions 2
conference banner
Abstract

Background: The combination of FFDM and DBT can significantly improve the diagnostic efficiency of breast cancer, but with the increase of breast radiation absorbed dose.

Objectives: To compare and analyze the radiation dose and diagnostic performance of different mammography positions combinations of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for different density types of breasts.

Methods This retrospective study involved 1,195 patients who underwent simultaneous breast DBT and FFDM. The mammography combinations were Group A, FFDM(CC+MLO); Group B, FDM(CC)+DBT(MLO); Group C, FFDM(MLO)+DBT(CC); Group D, DBT(CC+MLO); and Group E, FFDM(CC+MLO)+DBT(CC+MLO). An intergroup comparative analysis of radiation dose and diagnostic performance of different combinations of mammography positions for different breast density types was performed using the pathologic and 24-month follow-up results as the diagnostic basis.

Results: Overall, 2,403 mammograms indicated 477 cases of non-dense breast tissues and 1,926 cases of dense breast tissues. Differences in the mean radiation dose for each non-dense and dense breast group were statistically significant. The areas under the diagnostic receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the non-dense breast group were not statistically significant. In the dense breast group, the z-values were 1.623 (p = 0.105) and 1.724 (p = 0.085) for the area under the ROC curve in Group C compared with Groups D and E, respectively, and 0.724 (p = 0.469) when comparing Group D with Group E. The differences between the remaining groups were statistically significant.

Conclusion: Group A had the lowest radiation dose and no significant difference in diagnostic performance compared with the other non-dense breast groups. Group C had high diagnostic performance in the dense breast group considering the low radiation dose.

Keywords: Absorbed radiation dose, Diagnosis, Digital mammography, Cross-sectional synthesis technique, Two-view combination, Breast cancer.

[1]
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(6): 394-424.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492] [PMID: 30207593]
[2]
Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, et al. Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA 2020; 323(8): 746-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0572] [PMID: 32096852]
[3]
Chong A, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Digital Breast tomosynthesis: Concepts and clinical practice. Radiology 2019; 292(1): 1-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180760] [PMID: 31084476]
[4]
Gilbert FJ, Pinker-Domenig K. Diagnosis and Staging of Breast Cancer: when and how to use mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound, contrast-enhanced mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging. In: Hodler J, Kubik-Huch RA, Schulthess GK, Eds. Diseases of the Chest, Breast, Heart and Vessels 2019-2022: Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. Springer Copyright: Cham (CH) 2019; pp. 155-66.
[5]
Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Springer 2016; pp. 11-28.
[6]
Endo T, Morita T, Oiwa M, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction. Breast Cancer 2018; 25(2): 159-66.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0805-9] [PMID: 28956298]
[7]
M Ali RMK, England A, Tootell AK, Hogg P. Radiation dose from digital breast tomosynthesis screening - A comparison with full field digital mammography. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2020; 51(4): 599-603.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.08.018] [PMID: 32943362]
[8]
Teoh KC, Manan HA, Mohd Norsuddin N, Rizuana IH. Comparison of mean glandular dose between full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Healthcare 2021; 9(12): 1758.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121758] [PMID: 34946484]
[9]
Peters S, Hellmich M, Stork A, et al. Comparison of the detection rate of simulated microcalcifications in full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetically reconstructed 2-dimensional images performed with 2 different digital x-ray mammography systems. Invest Radiol 2017; 52(4): 206-15.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000334] [PMID: 27861206]
[10]
Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: A systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164(4): 268-78.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-1789] [PMID: 26757021]
[11]
Dang PA, Wang A, Senapati GM, et al. Comparing tumor characteristics and rates of breast cancers detected by screening digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214(3): 701-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.21060] [PMID: 31613659]
[12]
Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 2015; 25(1): 9-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8] [PMID: 25163902]
[13]
Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5(5): 635-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7078] [PMID: 30816931]
[14]
Vaughan CL. Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 2019; 72: 27-37.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.09.001] [PMID: 31554573]
[15]
Movik E, Dalsbø TK, Fagelund BC, Friberg EG, Håheim LL, Skår Å. IPH Systematic reviews digital breast tomosynthesis with hologic 3D mammography selenia dimensions system for use in breast cancer screening: a single technology assessment. Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) 2017.
[16]
Østerås BH, Skaane P, Gullien R, Martinsen ACT. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63(3): 035006.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aaa614] [PMID: 29311416]
[17]
Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA, et al. Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol 2019; 64(4): 045011.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aafcda] [PMID: 30625429]
[18]
Ambinder EB, Harvey SC, Panigrahi B, Li X, Woods RW. Synthesized mammography. Acad Radiol 2018; 25(8): 973-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.015] [PMID: 29395801]
[19]
Ikejimba LC, Salad J, Graff CG, et al. A four‐alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet‐printed anthropomorphic phantom. Med Phys 2019; 46(9): 3883-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13629] [PMID: 31135960]
[20]
Zeng B, Yu K, Gao L, Zeng X, Zhou Q. Breast cancer screening using synthesized two-dimensional mammography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2021; 59: 270-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.07.016] [PMID: 34329948]
[21]
Nakajima E, Tsunoda H, Ookura M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis complements two-dimensional synthetic mammography for secondary examination of breast cancer. J Belg Soc Radiol 2021; 105(1): 63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jbsr.2457] [PMID: 34786534]
[22]
Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2018; 18(1): 380.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3] [PMID: 29615072]
[23]
Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: Outcomes from the verona screening program. Radiology 2018; 287(1): 37-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170745] [PMID: 29237146]
[24]
Sheng M, Ji J, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Gong S, Lu Y. Optimization of the radiation dose of digital breast tomosynthesis in opportunistic screening by studying the effect of different combinations of FFDM and DBT views. Int J Gen Med 2021; 14: 1147-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S300584] [PMID: 33833554]
[25]
Dhou S, Dalah E, AlGhafeer R, Hamidu A, Obaideen A. Regression analysis between the different breast dose quantities reported in digital mammography and patient age, breast thickness, and acquisition parameters. J Imaging 2022; 8(8): 211.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8080211] [PMID: 36005454]
[26]
Shin SU, Chang JM, Bae MS, et al. Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol 2015; 25(1): 1-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z] [PMID: 25182628]
[27]
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A, et al. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: Per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 2013; 23(8): 2087-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2831-0] [PMID: 23620367]
[28]
Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Gubern-Merida A, Imhof-Tas M, et al. One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: Do we need more? Eur Radiol 2018; 28(5): 1938-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5167-3] [PMID: 29230524]
[29]
Kim S, Tran TXM, Song H, Ryu S, Chang Y, Park B. Mammographic breast density, benign breast disease, and subsequent breast cancer risk in 3.9 Million Korean Women. Radiology 2022; 304(3): 534-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212727] [PMID: 35579518]
[30]
Bodewes FTH, van Asselt AA, Dorrius MD, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2022; 66: 62-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007] [PMID: 36183671]
[31]
Gastounioti A, Pantalone L, Scott CG, et al. fully automated volumetric breast density estimation from digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 2021; 301(3): 561-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021210190] [PMID: 34519572]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
26
2
Wayfinder Image
Open Access Journals Promotions
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy