Synthesized Mammography

The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?
Published:February 04, 2018DOI:

      Rationale and Objectives

      This study aims to evaluate the screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized mammography (SM) vs combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

      Materials and Methods

      We retrospectively reviewed all screening studies utilizing FFDM + DBT (n = 7845) and SM + DBT (n = 14,776) between April 1, 2013, and February 15, 2016. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the two groups. A generalized linear mixed model specifying the reading radiologist as the random effect and controlling for age was used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups.


      The overall recall rate was significantly lower in the SM + DBT cohort compared to the FFDM + DBT cohort (7.06% vs 7.63%, P = .04). There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups.


      When DBT is performed for screening, the use of SM rather than acquiring an additional FFDM has no significant effect on biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR. We found a decrease in recall rate in the SM + DBT group, which may be related to the learning curve of interpreting DBT. These findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Rafferty E.A.
        • Park J.M.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        • et al.
        Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.
        Radiology. 2013; 266: 104-113
        • Bernardi D.
        • Macaskill P.
        • Pellegrini M.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 1105-1113
        • Rafferty E.A.
        • Park J.M.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 273-281
        • Ciatto S.
        • Houssami N.
        • Bernardi D.
        • et al.
        Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 583-589
        • McCarthy A.M.
        • Kontos D.
        • Synnestvedt M.
        • et al.
        Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106 (Print 2014 Nov): 1-7
        • Skaane P.
        • Bandos A.I.
        • Gullien R.
        • et al.
        Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.
        Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 2061-2071
        • Spangler M.L.
        • Zuley M.L.
        • Sumkin J.H.
        • et al.
        Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 320-324
        • Poplack S.P.
        • Tosteson T.D.
        • Kogel C.A.
        • et al.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 616-623
        • Gur D.
        • Zuley M.L.
        • Anello M.I.
        • et al.
        Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.
        Acad Radiol. 2012; 19: 166-171
        • Svahn T.M.
        • Houssami N.
        • Sechopoulos I.
        • et al.
        Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.
        Breast. 2015; 24: 93-99
        • Gur D.
        • Abrams G.S.
        • Chough D.M.
        • et al.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 193: 586-591
        • Zuley M.L.
        • Guo B.
        • Catullo V.J.
        • et al.
        Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.
        Radiology. 2014; 271: 664-671
        • Skaane P.
        • Bandos A.I.
        • Eben E.B.
        • et al.
        Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
        Radiology. 2014; 271: 655-663
        • Gilbert F.J.
        • Tucker L.
        • Gillan M.G.
        • et al.
        The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.
        Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19 (i–xxv): 1-136
        • Zuckerman S.P.
        • Conant E.F.
        • Keller B.M.
        • et al.
        Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program.
        Radiology. 2016; : 160366
        • D'Orsi C.
        • Sickles E.
        • Mendelson E.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system.
        American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • R Core Team
        R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
        R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2014
        • Bates D.
        • Maechler M.
        • Bolker B.
        • et al.
        Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.
        J Stat Softw. 2015; 67: 1-48