Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016-2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error. METHODS: Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1-5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review. RESULTS: In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The randomized controlled trial on digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT) and digital mammography (DM), 2016-2017, showed no difference in cancer detection for the two techniques. The rates of false negative screening examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were consistent with the rates in prior DM reviews, indicating that the non-superior DBT performance in the trial might not be due to interpretive error alone. KEY POINTS: • Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) did not result in a higher breast cancer detection rate compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) in the To-Be 1 trial. • The false negative rates for examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were determined in the trial to test if the lack of differences was due to interpretive error. • The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT versus DM was complex and not due to interpretive error alone.

Mammographic features and risk of breast cancer death among women with invasive screen-detected cancer in BreastScreen Norway 1996-2020.

OBJECTIVES: We explored associations between mammographic features and risk of breast cancer death among women with small (<15 mm) and large (≥15 mm) invasive screen-detected breast cancer. METHODS: We included data from 17,614 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer as a result of participation in BreastScreen Norway, 1996-2020. Data on mammographic features (mass, spiculated mass, architectural distortion, asymmetric density, density with calcification and calcification alone), tumour diameter and cause of death was obtained from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer death by mammographic features using spiculated mass as reference, adjusting for age, tumour diameter and lymph node status. All analyses were dichotomised by tumour diameter (small versus large). RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis was 60.8 (standard deviation, SD=5.8) for 10,160 women with small tumours and 60.0 (SD=5.8) years for 7454 women with large tumours. The number of breast cancer deaths was 299 and 634, respectively. Mean time from diagnosis to death was 8.7 (SD=5.0) years for women with small tumours and 7.2 (4.6) years for women with large tumours. Using spiculated mass as reference, adjusted HR for breast cancer death among women with small tumours was 2.48 (95% CI 1.67-3.68) for calcification alone, while HR for women with large tumours was 1.30 (95% CI 1.02-1.66) for density with calcification. CONCLUSIONS: Small screen-detected invasive cancers presenting as calcification and large screen-detected cancers presenting as density with calcification were associated with the highest risk of breast cancer death. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Small tumours (<15 mm) presented as calcification alone and large tumours (≥ 15 mm) presented as density with calcification were associated with the highest risk of breast cancer death among women with screen-detected invasive breast cancer diagnosed 1996-2020. KEY POINTS: • Women diagnosed with invasive screen-detected breast cancer 1996-2020 were analysed. • Small screen-detected cancers presenting as calcification alone resulted in the highest risk of breast cancer death. • Large screen-detected cancers presenting as density with calcification resulted in the highest risk of breast cancer death.

Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze discordant and false-negatives of double reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) including reading times in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST), and reclassify these in a retrospective reader study as missed, minimal sign, or true-negatives. METHODS: The prospective OTST comparing double reading DBT vs. DM had paired design with four parallel arms: DM, DM + computer aided detection, DBT + DM, and DBT + synthetic mammography. Eight radiologists interpreted images in batches using a 5-point scale. Reading time was automatically recorded. A retrospective reader study including four radiologists classified screen-detected cancers with at least one false-negative score and screening examinations of interval cancers as negative, non-specific minimal sign, significant minimal sign, and missed; the two latter groups are defined "actionable." Statistics included chi-square, Fisher's exact, McNemar's, and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Discordant rate (cancer missed by one reader) for screen-detected cancers was overall comparable (DBT (31% [71/227]) and DM (30% [52/175]), p = .81), significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers (DBT, 19% [20/106] vs. DM, 36% [38/106], p = .003), but high (28/49 = 57%, p = 0.001) for DBT-only detected spiculated cancers. Reading time and sensitivity varied among readers. False-negative DBT-only detected spiculated cancers had shorter reading time than true-negatives in 46% (13/28). Retrospective evaluation classified the following DBT exams "actionable": three missed by both readers, 95% (39/41) of discordant cancers detected by both modes, all 30 discordant DBT-only cancers, 25% (13/51) of interval cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Discordant rate was overall comparable for DBT and DM, significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers, but high for DBT-only detected spiculated lesions. Most false-negative screen-detected DBT were classified as "actionable." CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Retrospective evaluation of false-negative interpretations from the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial shows that most discordant and several interval cancers could have been detected at screening. This underlines the potential for modern AI-based reading aids and triage, as high-volume screening is a demanding task. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is more sensitive and has higher specificity compared to digital mammography screening, but high-volume DBT screening is a demanding task which can result in high discordance rate among readers. • Independent double reading DBT screening had overall comparable discordance rate as digital mammography, lower for spiculated masses seen on both modalities, and higher for small spiculated cancer seen only on DBT. • Almost all discordant digital breast tomosynthesis-detected cancers (72 of 74) and 25% (13 of 51) of the interval cancers in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were retrospectively classified as actionable and could have been detected by the readers.

Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway.

Background Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.

Organizers of medical educational courses are often confronted with questions that are clinically relevant yet trespassing the frontiers of scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine at the point of care. Therefore, since 2007 organizers of breast teaching courses in German language met biannually to find a consensus in clinically relevant questions that have not been definitely answered by science. The questions were prepared during the 3 months before the meeting according to a structured process and finally agreed upon the day before the consensus meeting. At the consensus meeting, the open questions concerning 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound, MR mammography, interventions as well as risk-based imaging of the breast were presented first for electronic anonymized voting, and then the results of the audience were separately displayed from the expert votes. Thereafter, an introductory statement of the moderator was followed by pros/cons of two experts, and subsequently the final voting was performed. With ≥75% of votes of the expert panel, an answer qualified as a consensus statement. Seventeen consensus statements were gained, addressing for instance the use of 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound in screening, MR mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk, markers for localization of pathologic axillary lymph nodes, and standards in risk-based imaging of the breast. After the evaluation, comments from the experts on each field were gathered supplementarily. Methodology, transparency, and soundness of statements achieve a unique yield for all course organizers and provide solid pathways for decision making in breast imaging.

Digital Mammography versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Impact of Breast Density on Diagnostic Performance in Population-based Screening.

BackgroundPrevious studies comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) have shown conflicting results regarding breast density and diagnostic performance.PurposeTo compare true-positive and false-positive interpretations in DM versus DBT according to volumetric density, age, and mammographic findings.Materials and MethodsFrom November 2010 to December 2012, 24 301 women aged 50-69 years (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7) were prospectively included in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Participants received same-compression DM and DBT with independent double reading for both DM and DM plus DBT reading modes. Eight experienced radiologists rated the images by using a five-point scale for probability of malignancy. Participants were followed up for 2 years to assess for interval cancers. Breast density was assessed by using automatic volumetric software (scale, 1-4). Differences in true-positive rates, false-positive rates, and mammographic findings were assessed by using confidence intervals (Newcombe paired method) and P values (McNemar and χ2 tests).ResultsThe true-positive rate of DBT was higher than that of DM for density groups (range, 12%-24%; P < .001 for density scores of 2 and 3, and P > .05 for density scores of 1 and 4) and age groups (range, 15%-35%; P < .05 for all age groups), mainly due to the higher number of spiculated masses and architectural distortions found at DBT (P < .001 for density scores of 2 and 3; P < .05 for women aged 55-69 years). The false-positive rate was lower for DBT than for DM in all age groups (range, -0.6% to -1.2%; P < .01) and density groups (range, -0.7 to -1.0%; P < .005) owing to fewer asymmetric densities (P ≤ .001), except for extremely dense breasts (0.1%, P = .82).ConclusionDigital breast tomosynthesis enabled the detection of more cancers in all density and age groups compared with digital mammography, especially cancers classified as spiculated masses and architectural distortions. The improvement in cancer detection rate showed a positive correlation with age. With use of digital breast tomosynthesis, false-positive findings were lower due to fewer asymmetric densities, except in extremely dense breasts.© RSNA, 2019Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Fuchsjäger and Adelsmayr in this issue.

Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively investigate early performance measures of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus standard digital mammography (DM) for consecutive screening rounds. METHODS: We included information about 35,736 women screened in BreastScreen Norway, 2008-2016, with at least two consecutive screening examinations. The pair of two consecutive screening examinations was the unit of analysis, and results from the subsequent examination were the measure of interest. Screening technique changed during the study period, resulting in four study groups: DM after DM, DBT after DM, DM after DBT, and DBT after DBT. We compared selected early performance measures between the study groups. RESULTS: Recall for DM after DM was 3.6% and lower for all other study groups (p < 0.001). The rate of screen-detected breast cancer was 4.6/1000 for DM after DM; for DBT after DM and DBT after DBT, it was 9.9/1000 and 8.3/1000, respectively (p < 0.001 relative to DM after DM), and for DM after DBT 4.3/1000. The rate of tubular carcinoma was higher for DBT after DBT or after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.01). The rate of histologic grade 1 tumors was higher for DBT after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.001). We did not observe any statistical difference in the interval cancer rates. CONCLUSIONS: Lower recall and higher cancer detection rates for screening with DBT were sustainable over two consecutive screening rounds. Positive predictive values were higher for DBT than DM. There were no differences in the interval cancer rates between the study groups. KEY POINTS: • There is limited knowledge about early performance measures for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis beyond one screening round. • A decline in recall rate and an incline in the rate of screen-detected breast cancer were observed for women screened with DBT compared with DM, irrespective of prior screening technique. The interval breast cancer rate did not differ statistically for women screened with DBT versus DM. • Tumor characteristics tended to be prognostic favorable for DBT compared with DM with no differences in rates of more advanced cancers. The clinical significance of increased cancer detection and the potential for future mortality reduction remain unknown.

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Purpose To compare the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) with that of digital mammography (DM) in a population-based mammographic screening program. Materials and Methods In this prospective cohort study, data from 37 185 women screened with DBT and SM and from 61 742 women screened with DM as part of a population-based screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included. Early performance measures, including recall rate due to abnormal mammographic findings, rate of screen-detected breast cancer, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of needle biopsy, histopathologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node involvement, hormonal status, Ki-67 level, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were compared in women who underwent DBT and SM screening and in those who underwent DM screening by using χ2 tests, two-sample unpaired t tests, and tests of proportions. Results Recall rates were 3.4% for DBT and SM screening and 3.3% for DM screening (P = .563). DBT and SM screening showed a significantly higher rate of screen-detected cancer compared with DM screening (9.4 vs 6.1 cancers per 1000 patients screened, respectively; P < .001). The rate of detection of tumors 10 mm or smaller was 3.2 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM and 1.8 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001), and the rate of grade 1 tumors was 3.3 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM versus 1.4 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001). On the basis of immunohistochemical analyses, rates of lymph node involvement and tumor subtypes did not differ between women who underwent DBT and SM screening and those who underwent DM screening. Conclusion DBT and SM screening increased the detection rate of histologically favorable tumors compared with that attained with DM screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening. METHODS: Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50-69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds. RESULTS: 24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers. CONCLUSIONS: DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.

The main purpose was to compare average glandular dose (AGD) for same-compression digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions in a population based screening program, with and without breast density stratification, as determined by automatically calculated breast density (Quantra™). Secondary, to compare AGD estimates based on measured breast density, air kerma and half value layer (HVL) to DICOM metadata based estimates. AGD was estimated for 3819 women participating in the screening trial. All received craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of each breasts with paired DM and DBT acquisitions. Exposure parameters were extracted from DICOM metadata. Air kerma and HVL were measured for all beam qualities used to acquire the mammograms. Volumetric breast density was estimated using Quantra™. AGD was estimated using the Dance model. AGD reported directly from the DICOM metadata was also assessed. Mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.10 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. Mean DBT/DM AGD ratio was 1.24. For fatty breasts: mean AGD was 1.74 and 2.27 mGy for DM and DBT, respectively. For dense breasts: mean AGD was 1.73 and 1.79 mGy, for DM and DBT, respectively. For breasts of similar thickness, dense breasts had higher AGD for DM and similar AGD for DBT. The DBT/DM dose ratio was substantially lower for dense compared to fatty breasts (1.08 versus 1.33). The average c-factor was 1.16. Using previously published polynomials to estimate glandularity from thickness underestimated the c-factor by 5.9% on average. Mean AGD error between estimates based on measurements (air kerma and HVL) versus DICOM header data was 3.8%, but for one mammography unit as high as 7.9%. Mean error of using the AGD value reported in the DICOM header was 10.7 and 13.3%, respectively. Thus, measurement of breast density, radiation dose and beam quality can substantially affect AGD estimates.

Screening-detected desmoid tumor of the breast: findings at conventional imaging and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Desmoid tumor of the breast is a rare benign entity that usually is mistaken for carcinoma clinically and radiologically. We report two cases of desmoid tumor of the breast detected by mammography screening using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The larger tumor was detected at both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and DBT. The smaller desmoid tumor, however, was identified only at tomosynthesis. Mammographic and ultrasonographic findings at diagnostic work-up were consistent with carcinoma of the breast. Preoperative needle biopsies could not conclusively diagnose the lesions. Both patients underwent excisional biopsy and histopathology revealed fibromatosis of the desmoid type.

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: To give an overview of studies comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The implementation of tomosynthesis in breast imaging is rapidly increasing world-wide. Experimental clinical studies of relevance for DBT screening have shown that tomosynthesis might have a great potential in breast cancer screening, although most of these retrospective reading studies are based on small populations, so that final conclusions are difficult to draw from individual reports. Several retrospective studies and three prospective trials on tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening have been published so far, confirming the great potential of DBT in mammography screening. The main results of these screening studies are presented. RESULTS: The retrospective screening studies from USA have all shown a significant decrease in the recall rate using DBT as adjunct to mammography. Most of these studies have also shown an increase in the cancer detection rate, and the non-significant results in some studies might be explained by a lack of statistical power. All the three prospective European trials have shown a significant increase in the cancer detection rate. CONCLUSION: The retrospective and the prospective screening studies comparing FFDM and DBT have all demonstrated that tomosynthesis has a great potential for improving breast cancer screening. DBT should be regarded as a better mammogram that could improve or overcome limitations of the conventional mammography, and tomosynthesis might be considered as the new technique in the next future of breast cancer screening.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: A pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials.

This pictorial review highlights cancers detected only at tomosynthesis screening and screens falsely recalled in the course of breast tomosynthesis screening, illustrating both true-positive (TP) and false-positive (FP) detection attributed to tomosynthesis. Images and descriptive data were used to characterise cases of screen-detection with tomosynthesis, sourced from prospective screening trials that performed standard (2D) digital mammography (DM) and tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) in the same screening participants. Exemplar cases from four trials highlight common themes of relevance to screening practice including: the type of lesions frequently made more conspicuous or perceptible by tomosynthesis (spiculated masses, and architectural distortions); the histologic findings (both TP and FP) of tomosynthesis-only detection; and the need to extend breast work-up protocols (additional imaging including ultrasound and MRI, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy) if tomosynthesis is adopted for primary screening.