The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis
Received 2 April 2019
Accepted for publication 3 August 2019
Published 31 October 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 9277—9296
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Eileen O'Reilly
A Hadjipanteli,1,2 M Kontos,3 A Constantinidou1,2
1Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus; 2Bank of Cyprus Oncology Centre, Nicosia, Cyprus; 31st Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Correspondence: A Hadjipanteli
Medical School, University of Cyprus, Shacolas Educational Centre for Clinical Medicine, Palaios dromos Lefkosias Lemesou, No. 215/6, 2029 Aglantzia, P.O. Box 20537, Nicosia 1678, CY, USA
Aim: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), with or without Digital Mammography (DM) or Synthetic Mammography (SM), has been introduced or is under consideration for its introduction in breast cancer screening in several countries, as it has been shown that it has advantages over DM. Despite this there is no agreement on how to implement DBT in screening, and in many cases there is a lack of official guidance on the optimum usage of each commercially available system. The aim of this review is to carry out a manufacturer-specific summary of studies on the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening.
Methods: An exhaustive literature review was undertaken to identify clinical observer studies that evaluated at least one of five common metrics: sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, recall rate and cancer detection rate. Four common DBT implementation methods were discussed in this review: (1) DBT, (2) DM with DBT, (3) 1-view DBT with or without 1-view DM or 2-view DM and (4) DBT with SM.
Results: A summary of 89 studies, selected from a database of 677 studies, on the assessment of the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening is presented in tables and discussed in a manufacturer- and metric-specific approach. Much more studies were carried out using some DBT systems than others. For one implementation method of DBT by one manufacturer there is a shortage of studies, for another implementation there are conflicting results. In some cases, there is a strong agreement between studies, making the advantages and disadvantages of each system clear.
Conclusion: The optimum implementation method of DBT in breast screening, in terms of diagnostic benefit and patient radiation dose, for one manufacturer does not necessarily apply to other manufacturers.
Keywords: digital breast tomosynthesis, breast cancer screening
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]