Main Article Content
Since its introduction in 2000, digital mammography has become an accepted standard of care in breast cancer screening and has paved the way for a new groundbreaking technology- breast tomosynthesis. With breast tomosynthesis, images of a breast are acquired at multiple angles during a short scan. The individual images are then reconstructed into a series of thin, high-resolution slices typically 1mm thick, which can be displayed individually or in a dynamic ciné mode. A tomosynthesis data set virtually elimi- nates detection challenges associated with overlapping structures in the breast, which is the primary drawback of conventional two dimensional (2D) mammography. Figure 1 illustrates the basic principle. As is known from standard computed tomography (CT) body imaging, three dimensional cross sectional slices often improve visibility through the reduction of superimposed structures.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. http://www. accessdata. fda.gov/cdrh_ docs/pdf 8/ P080003b.pdf
3. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette He, et al. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies? Acad Radiol 2010;5:639-45.
4. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, et al. Reading time of FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2011.
5. Gur D, Sumkin J, Zuley R, et al. Recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis during baseline examinations - pre- liminary assessment from a prospective screening trial. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2011
6. Rafferty E, Niklason L, Jameson-Meehan L. Breast tomosynthesis: one view or two? Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2006.
7. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011;18: 1298-310.
8. Kopans D, Moore R. Calcifications in digital breast omosynthesis (DBT). Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2008.
9. Rafferty EA, Niklason L. FFDM versus FFDM with tomosynthesis for women with radiologically dense breasts: an enriched retrospective reader study. Radio- logical Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2011.
10. Rafferty EA, Niklason L, Smith A. Comparison of FFDM with breast tomosynthesis to FFDM alone: performance in fatty and dense breasts. Tomosynthesis Imaging Sym- posium, Duke University, 2009.
11. Zuley M, Sumkin J, Ganott M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis vs. supplemental diagnostic mammography images for the evaluation of non-calcified breast lesions. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2011.
12. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012;22:539-44.
13. Savhn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. The diag- nostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view tomosynthesis and adual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:113-7.
14. Michell M, Iqbal A, Wasan R, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis with two dimension digital mammography in measurement of breast tumour size. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, 2010.
15. Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljunberg O, et al. Breast Tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 2010;3:240-7.
16. Meacock LM, et al. The accuracy of breast cancer size measurement: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT vs. 2D digital mammography). European College of Radiology annual meeting. Vienna, Austria, 2010.