COMPARISON BETWEEN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF BREAST CANCER

Authors

  • Irina JARI “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania
  • A.G. NAUM “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania
  • Liliana GHEORGHE “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania
  • D. NEGRU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania
  • Manuela URSARU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

Abstract

COMPARISON BETWEEN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF BREAST CANCER (Abstract): The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) on the detection and characterization of breast lesions and to compare the diagnostic performance of DM and DBT in order to determine whether or not simultaneously viewing is more informative in detection of breast cancers. Material and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 58 female patients (age 38 to 79 years old), who had pathologically proved breast cancers and had undergone both DM and DBT during a period of eight month (between February and September 2018). The diagnostic performance of each modality was evaluated. Results: The sensitivity of DM was 73% and its specificity was 47%, respectively the sensitivity of DBT was 98% and specificity 73%. The positive predictive value was 0.81 for DBT, while DM had a positive predictive value of 0.58. The negative predictive value was 0.98 in DBT and 0.62 in DM. The margins of the mass lesions and inhomogeneity of the focal asymmetric densities were better evaluated on DBT. Distributions and morphology of microcalcifications were better characterized on digital mammography than on tomosynthesis. Conclusions: In our study, DBT significantly enhances the detection and characterization of tumors in the context of mass lesions and focal asymmetric densities.

Author Biographies

  • Irina JARI, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

  • A.G. NAUM, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Morpho-functional Sciences (II)
    Regional Institute of Oncology, Center for Fundamental Research and Experimental
    Development in Translational Medicine - TRANSCEND, Iasi, Romania

  • Liliana GHEORGHE, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

  • D. NEGRU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

  • Manuela URSARU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania

    Faculty of Medicine
    Department of Surgery (II)

References

1. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266(1): 104-113.
2. Cohen Y. Tomosynthesis assisting in localization of breast lesions for ultrasound targeting seen on one mammographic view only. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203(5): W555.
3. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200(6): 1401-1408.
4. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013; 269(3): 694-700.
5. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200(2): 291-298.
6. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1020): e1174-e1178.
7. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mam-mography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267(1): 47-56.
8. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22(3): 539-544.
9. Manole A, Chelaru L, Gardikiotis I, Manole M, Monac B, Frunzuc G, Amihăesei IC, Velenciuc N, Ciuhodaru M. An overview on screening for breast cancer awareness in Romanian general population. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2017; 121 (3): 600-607.
10. Manea E, Munteanu A. Evolution of synchronous bilateral breast carcinoma in a young patient. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2016; 120(1): 192-196.
11. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS mammography, In: ACR BI-RADS atlas Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 2013. 5th ed, Reston, 2013; 1-175.
12. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 2013; 266(1): 89-95.
13. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45(5): 831e43.
14. Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 2012; 67(10): 976e81.
15. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(1): 16e24.
16. Gilbert F, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, et al. TOMMY Trial: a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19(4): i-xxv, 1-136.
17. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan M, et al. Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 2015; 277(3): 697-706.
18. Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, et al. Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 2017; 283(2): 371-380.
19. Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, et al. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast cancer research and treatment 2018; 169(3): 489-496.
20. Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Characterization of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate mi-crocalcification clusters? Results of a multicenter study. European Radiology 2015; 25(1): 9-14.

Additional Files

Published

2019-03-29

Issue

Vol. 123 No. 1 (2019): The Medical-Surgical Journal

Section

SURGERY

License

COPYRIGHT 
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.

COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR 

REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /

THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI

We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.

  1. we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
  2. the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
  3. we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.

Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):

  1. ______________________________/_________________________
  2. ______________________________/_________________________
  3. ______________________________/_________________________

N.B.  All the authors must sign this form