Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full‐field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Wasim Hamad,Michael J. Michell,Jonathan P. Myles,Fiona J. Gilbert,Yan Chen,Huajie Jin,John Loveland,Mark Halling‐Brown,Keshthra Satchithananda,Juliet Morel,Rema Wasan,Caroline Taylor,Nisha Sharma,Alexandra Valencia,Will Teh,Faisal Majid,Ronald M De Visser,Asif Iqbal,Stephen W. Duffy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.35217
2024-10-14
International Journal of Cancer
Abstract:What's new Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), when combined with full‐field digital mammogram (FFDM), exhibits relatively high accuracy in breast cancer diagnosis. The combination, however, increases radiation exposure. This review evaluated the performance of DBT plus synthesized 2D (S2D), derived from reconstructed tomosynthesis images, as an alternative to DBT + FFDM. DBT + S2D was found to have a higher cancer detection rate compared to FFDM alone and exhibited superior specificity relative to DBT + FFDM. CDR, however, was similar for DBT + S2D and DBT + FFDM. DBT and S2D perform similarly to DBT combined with FFDM, while mitigating increased radiation exposure, suggesting that it is a safe and effective alternative. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full‐field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two‐dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta‐analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta‐analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta‐analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81–3.25) and − 0.15 (95% CI −1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI −0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59–1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.
oncology