Advertisement

Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography

      Highlights

      • Nearly all calcifications are more conspicuous on synthetic mammography.
      • Nearly all architectural distortions are more conspicuous on synthetic mammography.
      • 43% non-calcified, non-distorted lesions have reduced visibility on synthetic mammography.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT.

      Materials and methods

      Seven breast imagers each prospectively evaluated 107–228 screening mammograms (FFDM, DBT, and SM; total 1206 examinations) over 12 weeks in sets of 10–50 consecutive examinations. Interpretation sessions alternated as follows: SM + DBT, then FFDM, or FFDM + DBT, then SM. Lesion conspicuity on SM versus FFDM (equal/better versus less) was assessed using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. DBT-only findings were excluded.

      Results

      Overall 1082 of 1206 (89.7%) examinations were assessed BI-RADS 1/2, and 124 of 1206 (10.3%) assessed BI-RADS 0. There were 409 evaluated findings, including 134 masses, 119 calcifications, 72 asymmetries, 49 architectural distortion, and 35 focal asymmetries. SM conspicuity compared to FFDM conspicuity for lesions was rated 1) masses: 77 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, 57 (43%) less conspicuous; 2) asymmetries/focal asymmetries: 61 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, and 46 (43%) less conspicuous; 3) architectural distortion: 46 (94%) equal or more conspicuous, 3 (6%) less conspicuous; 4) calcifications: 115 (97%) equal or more conspicuous, 4 (3%) less conspicuous. SM had better conspicuity than FFDM for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.

      Conclusion

      Compared to FFDM, SM has better conspicuity for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Friedewald S.M.
        • Rafferty E.A.
        • Rose S.L.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 2499-2507
        • Greenberg J.S.
        • Javitt M.C.
        • Katzen J.
        • Michael S.
        • Holland A.E.
        Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
        AJR. 2014; 203: 687-693
        • Sharpe R.E.
        • Venkataraman S.
        • Phillips J.
        • et al.
        Increased cancer detection rate and variations in recall rate from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program.
        Radiology. 2016; 278: 698-706
        • Conant E.F.
        • Beaber E.F.
        • Sprague B.L.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 156: 109-116
        • Giess C.S.
        • Pourjabbar S.
        • Ip I.K.
        • Lacson R.
        • Alper E.
        • Khorasani R.
        Comparing diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography in a hybrid screening environment.
        AJR. 2017; 209: 929-934
        • Haas B.M.
        • Kalra V.
        • Geisel J.
        • Raghu M.
        • Durand M.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
        Radiology. 2013; 269: 694-700
        • Rose S.L.
        • Al Tidwell
        • Bujnoch L.J.
        • Kushwaha A.C.
        • Nordmann A.S.
        • Sexton R.
        Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.
        AJR. 2013; 200: 1401-1408
        • McCarthy A.M.
        • Kontos D.
        • Synnestvedt M.
        • et al.
        Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106: 1-7
        • Durand M.A.
        • Haas B.M.
        • Yao X.
        • et al.
        Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
        Radiology. 2015; 24: 85-92
        • Lourenco A.P.
        • Barry-Brooks M.
        • Baird G.L.
        • Tuttle A.
        • Mainiero M.B.
        Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis.
        Radiology. 2015; 274: 337-342
        • Conant E.F.
        Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 2014; 52: 499-518
        • Vedantham S.
        • Karellas A.
        • Vijayaraghavan G.R.
        • Kopans D.B.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art.
        Radiology. 2015; 277: 663-684
        • Ratanaprasatporn L.
        • Chikarmane S.A.
        • Giess C.S.
        Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening.
        RadioGraphics. 2017; 37: 1913-1927
      1. Smith A. Synthesized 2D mammographic imaging: theory and clinical performance. Hologic. http://www.lowdose3d.com/images/C-View-White-Paper.pdf. Published 2016. accessed May 24, 2020.

        • Skaane P.
        • Bandos A.I.
        • Eben E.B.
        • et al.
        Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
        Radiology. 2014; 271: 655-663
        • Gilbert F.J.
        • Tucker L.
        • Gillan M.G.
        • et al.
        The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme-a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.
        Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19 (i-xxv): 1-136
        • Bernardi D.
        • Macaskill P.
        • Pellegrini M.
        • et al.
        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.
        Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 1105-1113
        • Zuckerman S.P.
        • Conant E.F.
        • Keller B.M.
        • et al.
        Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program.
        Radiology. 2016; 281: 730-736
        • Zuckerman S.P.
        • Sprague B.L.
        • Weaver D.L.
        • Herschorn S.D.
        • Conant E.F.
        Survey results regarding uptake and impact of synthetic digital mammography with tomosynthesis in the screening setting.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2020; 17: 31-37
        • Sickles E.A.
        • D’Orsi C.J.
        ACR BI-RADS follow-up and outcome monitoring 2013.
        in: D’Orsi C.J. Sickles E.A. Mendelson E.B. ACR BI-RADS Atlas Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Venkatesan A.
        • Chu P.
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Smith-Bindman R.
        Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables.
        Radiology. 2009; 250: 648-657
        • Mariscotti G.
        • Durando M.
        • Houssami N.
        • et al.
        Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 166: 765-773
        • Dodelzon K.
        • Simon K.
        • Dou E.
        • et al.
        Performance of 2D synthetic mammography versus digital mammography in the detection of microcalcifications at screening.
        AJR. 2020; 214: 1436-1444
        • Choi J.S.
        • Han B.K.
        • Do EY Kim G.R.
        • Ko E.S.
        • Park K.W.
        Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 319-329
        • Choi J.S.
        • Han B.K.
        • Ko E.Y.
        • et al.
        Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
        Eur Radiol. 2016; 26: 2538-2546
        • Chikarmane S.A.
        • Yeh E.D.
        • Wang A.
        • Ratanaprasatporn L.
        • Giess C.S.
        Conspicuity of screen-detected malignancies on full field digital mammography versus synthetic mammography.
        Acad Radiol. 2019; (S1076-6332(19)30312-5)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.06.008