Go Back
This abstract was viewed 55 times

Original research article

Preliminary clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis in the visualization of breast microcalcifications.

Stamatia V DestounisAndrea L ArienoRenee C Morgan
Department of Research, Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Rochester, New York, USA
Date of Submission: 18-Aug-2013, Date of Acceptance: 22-Sep-2013, Date of Web Publication: 31-Dec-2013.
Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Stamatia V. Destounis

Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, 170 Sawgrass Dr, Rochester,New York, 14620, USA.
E-mail: sdestounis@ewbc.com

Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Stamatia V. Destounis

Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, 170 Sawgrass Dr, Rochester,New York, 14620, USA.
E-mail: sdestounis@ewbc.com

DOI: 10.4103/2156-7514.124099 Facebook Twitter Google Linkedin


Objectives: To compare the visualization and image quality of microcalcifications imaged with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus conventional digital mammography.
Materials and Methods: Patients with microcalcifications detected on full field digital mammography (FFDM) recommended for needle core biopsy were enrolled in the study after obtaining patient’s consent and institutional review board approval (n = 177patients, 179 lesions). All had a bilateral combination DBT exam, after undergoing routine digital mammography, prior to biopsy. The study radiologist reviewed the FFDM and DBT images in a non-blinded comparison and assessed the visibility of the microcalcifications with both methods, including image quality and clarity with which the calcifications were seen. Data recorded included patient demographics, lesion size on FFDM, DBT, and surgical excision (when applicable), biopsy, and surgical pathology, if any.
Results: Average lesion size on DBT was 1.5 cm; average lesion size on FFDM was 1.4 cm. The image quality of DBT was assessed as equivalent or superior in 92.2% of cases. In 7.8% of the cases, the FFDM image quality was assessed as equivalent or superior.
Conclusion: In our review, DBT image quality appears to be comparable to or better than conventional FFDM in terms of demonstrating microcalcifications, as shown in 92.2% of cases.
Keywords: Breast Imaging, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Digital Mammography, Microcalcifications

Cited in 14 Documents

  1. Mohammad Eghtedari, Catherine Tsai, Julie Robles, Sarah L. Blair and Haydee Ojeda-Fournier (2018) Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Imaging. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 27(1):33. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2017.07.004
  2. M. Luke Marinovich, Daniela Bernardi, Petra Macaskill, Anna Ventriglia, Vincenzo Sabatino and Nehmat Houssami (2019) Agreement between digital breast tomosynthesis and pathologic tumour size for staging breast cancer, and comparison with standard mammography. The Breast 43:59. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.11.001
  3. Jieun Byun, Jee Eun Lee, Eun Suk Cha, Jin Chung and Jeoung Hyun Kim (2017) Visualization of Breast Microcalcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2-Dimensional Digital Mammography Using Specimens. Breast Cancer: Basic and Clinical Research 11:117822341770338. doi: 10.1177/1178223417703388
  4. Srinivasan Vedantham, Andrew Karellas, Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan and Daniel B. Kopans (2015) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. Radiology 277(3):663. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015141303
  5. Heather R. Peppard, Brandi E. Nicholson, Carrie M. Rochman, Judith K. Merchant, Ray C. Mayo and Jennifer A. Harvey (2015) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications. RadioGraphics 35(4):975. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015140204
  6. Bruno Boyer and Corinne Balleyguier (2016) Tomosynthèse au quotidien : quelles patientes ? Quelles incidences ? Quelles limites ?. Imagerie de la Femme 26(3-4):166. doi: 10.1016/j.femme.2016.09.003
  7. Joao V. Horvat, Delia M. Keating, Halio Rodrigues-Duarte, Elizabeth A. Morris and Victoria L. Mango (2019) Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques. RadioGraphics 39(2):307. doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180124
  8. M. Luke Marinovich, Petra Macaskill, Daniela Bernardi and Nehmat Houssami (2018) Systematic review of agreement between tomosynthesis and pathologic tumor size for newly diagnosed breast cancer and comparison with other imaging tests. Expert Review of Medical Devices 15(7):489. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2018.1491306
  9. Nikki Tirada, Guang Li, David Dreizin, Luke Robinson, Gauri Khorjekar, Sergio Dromi and Thomas Ernst (2019) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Physics, Artifacts, and Quality Control Considerations. RadioGraphics 39(2):413. doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180046
  10. Martine Boisserie-Lacroix, Caroline Ziadé, Gabrielle Hurtevent-Labrot, Stéphane Ferron and Marie-Pierre Depetiteville (2016) Microcalcifications : quel apport de la tomosynthèse ?. Imagerie de la Femme 26(3-4):157. doi: 10.1016/j.femme.2016.08.004
  11. Nicolas Perrot and Isabelle Thomassin-Nagarra (2016) Peut-on se passer de l’acquisition bidimensionnelle grâce aux reconstructions ?. Imagerie de la Femme 26(3-4):171. doi: 10.1016/j.femme.2016.08.008
  12. (2018) Breast Tomosynthesis. 243. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-35827-9.16001-0
  13. Stamatia V. Destounis, Renee Morgan and Andrea Arieno (2015) Screening for Dense Breasts: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. American Journal of Roentgenology 204(2):261. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13554
  14. Stamatia Destounis, Amanda Santacroce and Andrea Arieno (2017) DBT as a Screening Tool and a Diagnostic Tool. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 9(4):264. doi: 10.1007/s12609-017-0259-2

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.