Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the synthetic C view acquired at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would give adequate information to confirm a malignancy and could obviate the need to review all the tomosynthesis image data set. METHODS: All patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer recalled from screening mammograms between May and September 2016 were included for review. For each patient, the screening 2D mammogram, the synthetic C view, and the DBT images were reviewed by three breast radiologists and each assigned a BIRADS code. Any discrepancies were reviewed and resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in this time period. Fourteen were excluded because they did not have DBT performed. Five women were recalled for evaluation of two lesions. In total, 83 lesions were assessed. In 27 cases, the BIRADS code remained unchanged in the three modalities. In 16 cases, the lesions appeared more concerning on C view and DBT that on the original mammogram but were not definitive for malignancy (BIRADS 4). In 29 cases, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned on C view and tomosynthesis but not on 2D. For 11 lesions, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned only on DBT. Four women had BIRADS 5 lesions seen on both the C view and DBT that were not seen on the screening 2D mammogram. One was multifocal. CONCLUSION: While the synthetic C view gives additional information when compared to a screening 2D mammogram, the full DBT tomosynthesis data set needs to be reviewed to diagnose a breast malignancy.

With the Advent of Tomosynthesis in the Workup of Mammographic Abnormality, is Spot Compression Mammography Now Obsolete? An Initial Clinical Experience.

To determine if the routine use of spot compression mammography is now obsolete in the assessment of screen detected masses, asymmetries and architectural distortion since the availability of digital breast tomosynthesis. We introduced breast tomosynthesis in the workup of screen detected abnormalities in our screening center in January 2015. During an initial learning period with tomosynthesis standard spot compression views were also performed. Three consultant breast radiologists retrospectively reviewed all screening mammograms recalled for assessment over the first 6-month period. We assessed retrospectively whether there was any additional diagnostic information obtained from spot compression views not already apparent on tomography. All cases were also reviewed for any additional lesions detected by tomosynthesis, not detected on routine 2-view screening mammography. 548 women screened with standard 2-view digital screening mammography were recalled for assessment in the selected period and a total of 565 lesions were assessed. 341 lesions were assessed by both tomosynthesis and routine spot compression mammography. The spot compression view was considered more helpful than tomosynthesis in only one patient. This was because the breast was inadequately positioned for tomosynthesis and the area in question was not adequately imaged. Apart from this technical error there was no asymmetry, distortion or mass where spot compression provided more diagnostic information than tomosynthesis alone. We detected three additional cancers on tomosynthesis, not detected by routine screening mammography. From our initial experience with tomosynthesis we conclude that spot compression mammography is now obsolete in the assessment of screen detected masses, asymmetries and distortions where tomosynthesis is available.