Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T17:52:01.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Digital breast tomosynthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Gary J. Whitman
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Tamara Milner Haygood
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Digital breast tomosynthesis is a breast imaging technology that provides three-dimensional-like information. Tomosynthesis has been developed to improve the characterization of breast lesions and cancer detection, particularly in dense breasts. However, an understanding of mammography and its limitations is necessary to fully appreciate tomosynthesis and its potential uses and advantages. The purpose of mammography is the early detection of breast cancer. Mammography is the only imaging method scientifically proven with the ability to detect clinically occult breast cancer and result in a decreased mortality rate from breast cancer. Several large controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of screening mammography, reducing breast cancer mortality rates by 18–30% [1,2]. However, screening mammography does not detect all breast cancers. Film-screen mammography does not detect 10–20% of palpable breast cancers, particularly in dense breasts, as there may not be a sufficient difference in contrast between the normal breast tissue and the cancer [3,4].

Film-screen mammography is an analog detection system, in which x-ray photons pass through the breast and are converted to light by a fluorescing screen. A reaction on the film emulsion is triggered by the light. The film is developed by a chemical process, thus producing a gray-scale image of the photon distribution. Digital mammography differs from film-screen mammography in that the x-ray photons strike a digital detector, which converts the absorbed energy into an electronic signal. This signal is received, processed, and stored as a matrix. The signal is linearly proportional to the intensity of the transmitted x-ray. This results in a wider dynamic range than for film-screen mammography [5]. Digital mammography provides a broader dynamic range of densities and greater contrast resolution. However, the spatial resolution of film-screen mammography is better than that of digital mammography. Spatial resolution is measured in terms of the smallest high-contrast object that can be distinguished as distinct. Film-screen mammography resolves 12 and 15 line-pairs/mm, which is equivalent to 42–30 μm pixels. For digital mammography, spatial resolution ranges from 100 to about 50 μm pixels in whole-breast mode or 5–10 line-pairs/mm [6]. Because of reduction in quantum mottle and elimination of granular artifacts from film emulsion, digital images have lower noise than film-screen images [5,7]. The radiation dose of film-screen and digital mammography is comparable, with average mean glandular doses of 4.7 and 3.7 mGy for film-screen and digital mammography, respectively [8,9].

Type
Chapter
Information
Digital Mammography
A Practical Approach
, pp. 109 - 124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hendrick, RE, Smith, RA, Rutledge, JH, Smart, CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nystrom, L, Rutqvist, L, Wall, S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 1993; 342: 973–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, HC, Sibbering, DM, Wilson, AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 1996; 199: 811–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollingsworth, AB, Taylor, LD, Rhodes, DC.Establishing a histologic basis for false-negative mammograms. Am J Surg 1993; 166: 643–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feig, SA, Yaffe, MJ.Current status of digital mammography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1996; 17: 424–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, JM, D’Orsi, CJ, Hendrick, RE.Digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42: 871–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, E, Yaffe, M. Digital mammography. Breast Dis 1998; 10: 127–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berns, EA, Hendrick, RE, Cutter, GR.Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen: film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002; 29: 830–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendrick, RE.Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 2010; 257: 246–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, ER, McCurry, EM, Hruska B. An infinite number of laminagrams from a finite number of radiographs. Radiology 1971; 98: 249–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niklason, LT, Christian, BT, Nikalson, LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopans, DB.Breast Imaging, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007.Google Scholar
Sone, S, Kasuga, T, Sakai, F, et al. Development of a high-resolution digital tomosynthesis system and its clinical application. Radiographics 1991; 11: 807–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, DP, Yester, MV, Barnes, GT, Lakshminarayanan, AV.Self-masking subtraction tomosynthesis. Radiology 1984; 150: 225–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sone, S, Kasuga, T, Sakai, F, et al. Chest imaging with dual-energy subtraction digital tomosynthesis. Acta Radiol 1993; 34: 346–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edholm, PR, Quiding, L.Reduction of linear blurring in tomography. Radiology 1969; 92: 1115–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edholm, P, Quiding, L.Elimination of blur in linear tomography. Acta Radiol 1970; 10: 441–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Saunders, RS, Samei, E, Lo, JY, Baker, JA.Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte Carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis. Radiology 2009; 251: 673–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Förnvik, D, Andersson, I, Svahn, T, et al. The effect of reduced breast compression in breast tomosynthesis: human observer study using clinical cases. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139: 118–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poplack, SP, Tosteson, TD, Kogel, CA, Nagy, HM.Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 616–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettler, FA, Bhargavan, M, Faulkner, K, et al. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources-1950–2007. Radiology 2009; 253: 520–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report 160. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2009.Google Scholar
Gur, D, Abrams, GS, Chough, DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 586–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuley, ML, Bandos, AI, Abrams, GS, et al. Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 450–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Food and Drug Administration. Radiation-emitting products. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. Facility certification and inspection (MQSA). (accessed April 2012).
Rafferty, E, Kopans, DB, Wu, T, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: will a single view do? Radiologic Society of North America 90th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Chicago (IL), December 2004.
Michell, MJ, Wasan, RK, Iqbal, A, et al. Two-view 2D digital mammography versus one-view digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, WF, Abrams, GS, Catullo, VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 865–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, I, Ikeda, DM, Zackrisson, S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2817–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, CM, Chough, DM, Ganott, MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: W172–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teertstra, HJ, Loo, CE, van den Bosch, MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 16–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gennaro, G, Toledano, A, di Maggio, C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1545–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helvie, MA, Chan, H, Hadjiiski, LM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis mammography: successful assessment of benign and malignant microcalcifications. Radiologic Society of North America 95th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program, 2009; p. 389.
Spangler, ML, Zuley, ML, Sumkin, JH, et al. Detection and characterization of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 320–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helvie, MA, Hadjiiski, L, Goodsitt, M, et al. Characterization of benign and malignant masses by digital breast tomosynthesis mammography. Radiologic Society of North America 94th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Chicago (IL), December 2008.
Helvie, MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 917–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qianqian, F, Selb, J, Carp, SA, et al. Combined optical and x-ray tomosynthesis breast imaging. Radiology 2011; 258: 89–97.Google Scholar
Chan, HP, Wei, J, Sahiner, B, et al. Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. Radiology 2005; 237: 1075–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×