Three-Dimensional Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Two-Dimensional Mammography in Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions Keeping Biopsy as the Gold Standard
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.2894Keywords:
Breast cancer, Digital breast tomosynthesis, Digital mammography, Diagnostic accuracy, Histopathology, BI-RADS, Breast imaging.Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is a major cause of cancer death in women throughout the world. Accurate detection at an early stage is extremely important to improve outcomes. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has potential advantages over conventional digital mammography (DM) due to reduction of tissue superimposition. This study is being conducted with the aim to compare the diagnostic performance of the three-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis and two-dimensional digital mammography in the detection and characterization of the breast lesions, using histopathology as the gold standard. Methods: This cross-sectional validation study was conducted in the radiology department of a Combined Military Hospital, Gujranwala from 31 January 2025 to 31 May 2025. Female patients aged 25-70 years who underwent both the digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis and had a breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS categories three to five were included. All participants afterwards underwent histopathological evaluation through the biopsy or surgical excision. Imaging findings were interpreted independently by the experienced radiologists who were blinded to the histopathological results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall diagnostic accuracy were measured for both imaging modalities. Results: The mean age of participants was found to be 48.32+12.96 years. DBT was shown to have improved diagnostic performance over DM, having higher sensitivity (92.3% vs. 84.6%), specificity (79.4% vs. 76.5%), PPV (77.4% vs. 73.3%), NPV (93.1% vs. 86.7%) and overall accuracy (85.0% vs. 80.0%). Conclusion: 3-D digital breast tomosynthesis is a superior modality to conventional mammography for the detection and characterization of breast lesions in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value. Its superior performance in diverse patient subgroups supports the role of this modality as a preferred modality of imaging, especially in symptomatic patients and patients of challenging breast compositions.
Downloads
References
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
2. Khan MA, Hanif S, Iqbal S, Shahzad MF, Shafique S, Khan MT. Presentation delay in breast cancer patients and its association with sociodemographic factors in North Pakistan. Chin J Cancer Res. 2015 Jun;27(3):288-93.
https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2015.04.11.
3. Tsarouchi MI, Hoxhaj A, Mann RM. New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;58(4):987-1010.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28731
4. Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerß J, Hense HW, Sommer A, Krischke M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 May;23(5):601-611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00194-2.
5. Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Jänsch A, Hacker A, Weinand S, Vogelmann T. Tomosynthesis with synthesised two-dimensional mammography yields higher cancer detection compared to digital mammography alone, also in dense breasts and in younger women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2022; 152:110324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110324
6. Lowry KP, Coley RY, Miglioretti DL, et al. Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2011792.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11792
7. Pang JX, Newsome J, Sun M, et al. Impact of switching from digital mammography to tomosynthesis plus digital mammography on breast cancer screening in Alberta, Canada. J Med Screen. 2021;29(1):38-43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413211032265
8. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, Sebuødegård S, Østerås BH, Gullien R, et al. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 2019 Apr;291(1):23-30.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182394.
9. Østerås BH, Martinsen ACT, Gullien R, Skaane P. Digital Mammography versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Impact of Breast Density on Diagnostic Performance in Population-based Screening. Radiology. 2019 Oct;293(1):60-68.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190425.
10. Gao Y, Moy L, Heller SL. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice. Radiographics. 2021 Mar-Apr;41(2):321-337.
https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021200101.
11. Richman IB, Long JB, Hoag JR, Upneja A, Hooley R, Xu X, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Nov 2;113(11):1515-1522.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab063.
12. Abdelattef SAA, Ibrahim SF, Abdelhamid WR, FM Mahmoud. Three dimensional tomosynthesis versus two dimensional mammography in detection and characterization of different breast lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2021;52:1-14.
13. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095.
14. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):47-56.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373.
15. Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012 Oct;67(10):976-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.009.
16. Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014 Feb 25;4:9.
https://doi.org/10.4103/2156-7514.127838.
17. Gordon PB. The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening. Curr Oncol. 2022 May 17;29(5):3595-3636.
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29050291.
18. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Tuttobene P, Fanto' C, Valentini M, Michele SD, Peterlongo P, Houssami N. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 May;133(1):267-71.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-1959-y.
19. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared with Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):737-43.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
