Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography with Synthesized Mammography from Tomosynthesis in a Diagnostic Population: Prospective Study

Overview

Journal Indian J Radiol Imaging

Publisher Thieme

Specialty Radiology

Date 2024 Dec 19

PMID 39697501

Authors

Ekta Dhamija

Supraja Laguduva Mohan

Roshni Anand

Maroof Ahmad Khan

Sankaravamsam Venkata Suryanarayana Deo

Smriti Hari

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Synthesized mammography (SM) refers to two-dimensional (2D) images derived from the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data. It can reduce the radiation dose and scan duration when compared with conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus tomosynthesis. To compare the diagnostic performance of 2D FFDM with synthetic mammograms obtained from DBT in a diagnostic population. A total of 1,468 mammograms with both FFDM and SM + DBT images were obtained and analyzed over 2 years, after obtaining approval from the institute ethics committee. The images were reported and compared as per the 2013 American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon in terms of breast density, morphological features of mass, calcifications, and presence of asymmetry or architectural distortion followed by the BI-RADS category. The agreement between the two modalities was studied using the Kappa value, and the radiation exposure dose was recorded in both groups. FFDM and SM + DBT showed strong agreement for breast density, mass characteristics, and detection of calcifications (kappa > 0.8). Downstaging of breast density and mass density were seen by SM + DBT without any statistically significant difference. The nipple-areola complex visualization was poor in SM (50.34 vs. 76.29% in FFDM), and there were SM-specific artifacts mainly related to the reconstruction algorithm. The radiation dose was higher with SM. FFDM has comparable performance to SM + DBT in diagnostic setup. The latter may be particularly helpful in patients with dense breasts.

References

Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen A, Lee C, Albertsen J, Bjorndal H . Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2018; 287(3):787-794. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018171361. View

Ab Mumin N, Rahmat K, Fadzli F, Ramli M, Westerhout C, Ramli N . Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):1459. PMC: 6365555. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37451-4. View

Simon K, Dodelzon K, Drotman M, Levy A, Arleo E, Askin G . Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212(6):1406-1411. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20520. View

Dhamija E, Gulati M, Deo S, Gogia A, Hari S . Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021; 12(2):315-329. PMC: 8272763. DOI: 10.1007/s13193-021-01310-y. View

Duffy S, Tabar L, Yen A, Dean P, Smith R, Jonsson H . Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women. Cancer. 2020; 126(13):2971-2979. PMC: 7318598. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32859. View

Skaane P, Bandos A, Eben E, Jebsen I, Krager M, Haakenaasen U . 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(3):655-63. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131391. View

Heywang-Kobrunner S, Jansch A, Hacker A, Weinand S, Vogelmann T . Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesised two-dimensional mammography (s2D) in breast cancer screening is associated with higher cancer detection and lower recalls compared to digital mammography (DM) alone: results of a systematic review.... Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(4):2301-2312. PMC: 8921114. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08308-8. View

Mann R, Athanasiou A, Baltzer P, Camps-Herrero J, Clauser P, Fallenberg E . Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(6):4036-4045. PMC: 9122856. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08617-6. View

Gulati S, Dhamija E, Anand R . Imaging Artifacts on Synthesized Mammogram: What a Radiologist should Know!. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2022; 32(4):555-561. PMC: 9705128. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1754364. View

10.

Gastounioti A, McCarthy A, Pantalone L, Synnestvedt M, Kontos D, Conant E . Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2019; 291(2):320-327. PMC: 6493215. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181740. View

11.

You C, Zhang Y, Gu Y, Xiao Q, Liu G, Shen X . Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2019; 27(1):47-53. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-019-00992-1. View

12.

Zuckerman S, Maidment A, Weinstein S, McDonald E, Conant E . Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209(1):222-229. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17476. View

13.

Aujero M, Gavenonis S, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, Holt J . Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. Radiology. 2017; 283(1):70-76. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162674. View

14.

Abdullah P, Alabousi M, Ramadan S, Zawawi I, Zawawi M, Bhogadi Y . Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 217(2):314-325. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.24204. View

15.

Tirada N, Li G, Dreizin D, Robinson L, Khorjekar G, Dromi S . Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Physics, Artifacts, and Quality Control Considerations. Radiographics. 2019; 39(2):413-426. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2019180046. View

16.

Feng S, Sechopoulos I . Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. Radiology. 2012; 263(1):35-42. PMC: 3309800. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11111789. View

17.

Gur D, Zuley M, Anello M, Rathfon G, Chough D, Ganott M . Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2011; 19(2):166-71. PMC: 3251730. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003. View

18.

Monticciolo D, Malak S, Friedewald S, Eby P, Newell M, Moy L . Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021; 18(9):1280-1288. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021. View

19.

Zuckerman S, Conant E, Keller B, Maidment A, Barufaldi B, Weinstein S . Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. Radiology. 2016; 281(3):730-736. PMC: 5131829. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160366. View

20.

Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane S, Giess C . Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening. Radiographics. 2017; 37(7):1913-1927. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017170032. View