Our experience using synthesized mammography vs full field digital mammography in population-based screening

• Published in: European journal of radiology Open Vol. 10; p. 100475
• Main Authors: Ahmadinejad, Nasrin, Rasoulighasemlouei, Seyedehsahel, Rostamzadeh, Negin, Arian, Arvin, Mohajeri, Amirhassan, Miratashi Yazdi, Seyedeh Nooshin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-01-2023; Elsevier
• Subjects: BI-RADS categorization; Breast cancer; Digital breast tomography; Digital mammography; Original; Synthesized mammography; CC; TUMS; ICC; BI-RADS categorization; FFDM; BI-RADS; Digital mammography; Breast cancer; MLO; NPV; DBT; PPV; Digital breast tomography; Synthesized mammography; SM; AWS; PPV, Positive Predictive Value; TUMS, Tehran University of Medical Sciences; SM, Synthesized Mammograms; BI-RADS, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System; DBT, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis; FFDM, Digital Mammography; NPV, Negative Predictive Value; CC, Cranio-Caudal; AWS, Acquisition Workstation; MLO, Medio Lateral Oblique; ICC, Intra Class Correlations
• ISSN: 2352-0477; 2352-0477
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100475

Synthesized Mammogram (SM) from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) images is introduced to replace the routine Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) to reduce radiation dose.
to compare the conspicuity of cancer related findings between SM and FFDM and combination of these methods with DBT
The study was conducted in a tertiary breast imaging center, where 200 women referred for screening were enrolled in the study sequentially. Patients underwent FFDM and DBT simultaneously and a two-year follow-up was done. Data was evaluated for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score, breast density, mass lesions, calcification, and focal asymmetry by two expert breast radiologists. Comparison between different methods was made by Cohen Kappa test.
22 patients with likely malignant findings went under biopsy. Taking histopathologic findings and two-year follow up as reference, the overall sensitivity and specificity for FFDM+DBT (86.1 and 88.9 respectively) and SM+DBT (86.1 and 88.2) didn’t show a meaningful difference. Comparing SM and FFDM, calcification in 20 subjects were overlooked on SM, but later detected when combined with DBT. Considering breast composition and BI-RADS categorization, an excellent agreement existed between the readers.
Screening with SM+DBT shows comparable results with FFDM+DBT considering BI-RADS categorization of the patients. Although SM showed slightly inferior sensitivity compared to FFDM, after combining DBT with SM no malignant appearing calcification or mass lesion was missed.