SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atlas Journal of Medicine / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: Özel Sayı 1 Özel Sayı

Use of Dıgıtal Breast Tomosynthesıs in Screenıng and Dıagnosıs; Current Status, Advantages, and Dısadvantages

Tarama ve tanısal dijital meme tomosentezi kullanımı; güncel durum, avantaj ve dezavantajları

Ömer Özyiğit(İstanbul Atlas Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4884-9842
Pages
30–34
Publication Date
2026-05-08
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article reviews the current literature on DMT, including screening results, tips for lesion localization and characterization, changes in diagnostic imaging processes, and future developments aimed at improving both efficiency and accuracy in DMT imaging.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DMT) stands out as the standard imaging method because it provides improvements in both screening and diagnosis in the field of breast imaging.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The additional information obtained through tomosynthesis helps to reduce the misinterpretation caused by overlapping tissues, making lesion detection, characterization, and localization easier.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article reviews the current literature on DMT, including screening results, tips for lesion localization and characterization, changes in diagnostic imaging processes, and future developments aimed at improving both efficiency and accuracy in DMT imaging.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meme kanseri · tomosentez · tarama

Abstract

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DMT) stands out as the standard imaging method because it provides improvements in both screening and diagnosis in the field of breast imaging. The additional information obtained through tomosynthesis helps to reduce the misinterpretation caused by overlapping tissues, making lesion detection, characterization, and localization easier. Moreover, the three-dimensional information obtained from DMT offers a more efficient imaging process compared to two-dimensional digital mammography (DM). This article reviews the current literature on DMT, including screening results, tips for lesion localization and characterization, changes in diagnostic imaging processes, and future developments aimed at improving both efficiency and accuracy in DMT imaging.

Özet

Dijital meme tomosentezi (DMT), meme görüntüleme alanında hem tarama hem de teşhis açısından iyileşmeler sağladığı için standart görüntüleme yöntemi olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Tomosentez ile elde edilen ek bilgiler, örtüşen dokuların oluşturduğu yanılgıyı azaltarak lezyon tespitini, karakterizasyonunu ve lokalizasyonunu kolaylaştırır. Ayrıca, DMT'den elde edilen üç boyuta yakın bilgiler, sadece iki boyutlu dijital mamografi (DM) ile yapılan görüntülemeye kıyasla daha verimli bir görüntüleme süreci sunar. Bu makalede, tarama sonuçları, lezyon lokalizasyonu ve karakterizasyonu için ipuçları, teşhis görüntüleme süreçlerinde değişimler ve DMT görüntülemede hem verimliliği hem de doğruluğu artırmaya yönelik gelecekteki gelişmeler dahil olmak üzere DMT hakkındaki mevcut literatür gözden geçirilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özyiğit, Ö. (2026). Use of Dıgıtal Breast Tomosynthesıs in Screenıng and Dıagnosıs; Current Status, Advantages, and Dısadvantages. Atlas Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 6 Sayı: Özel Sayı 1 Özel Sayı, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.54270/atljm.2026.123

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Kleinknecht JH, Ciurea AI, Ciortea CA. Pros and cons for breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis: a review of the literature. Med Pharm Rep. 2020;93(4):335–341.
  2. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I: The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301.
  3. Sechopoulos I, Ghetti C. Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital breast tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys. 2009;36(4):1199–1207.
  4. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(3):663–684.
  5. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. In: Flynn MJ, ed. Proc SPIE Medical Imaging: Physics of Medical Imaging. Vol 5745. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2005:529–540.
  6. Durand MA, Wang S, Hooley RJ, et al. Tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion: management algorithm with radiologic–pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2016;36(2):311–321.
  7. Geisel JL, Andrejeva L, Raghu M, et al. Supplementary views in the era of tomosynthesis: are additional views always helpful? Presented at: ARRS Annual Meeting; 2016; Los Angeles, CA.
  8. Korhonen KE, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, et al. Strategies to increase cancer detection: review of true-positive and false-negative results at digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Radiographics. 2016;36(7):1954–1965.
  9. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):172–176.
  10. Nakashima K, Uematsu T, Itoh T, et al. Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D mammography. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(2):570–577.
  11. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology. 2012;262(1):61–68.
  12. Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291–298.
  13. Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, et al. Interval breast cancers in the “screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography” (STORM) trial. Breast. 2018;38:150–153.
  14. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared with digital mammography alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(1):109–116.
  15. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, et al. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–743.
  16. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on interpretation time. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49–56.
  17. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):1174–1178.
  18. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, et al. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast. 2015;24(2):93–99.
  19. Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. Radiographics. 2017;37(7):1913–1927.
  20. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Full-field digital mammography system—Class II special controls guidance. Updated June 8, 2021.
  21. Alabousi M, Wadera A, Al-Ghita MK, et al. Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis, synthetic mammography, and digital mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(2):205–215.
  22. Choi Y, Woo OH, Shin HS, et al. Quantitative analysis of radiation dose and image quality between DMT with synthetic mammography and FFDM. Clin Imaging. 2019;55:12–17.
  23. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499–2507.
  24. Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, et al. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv120.
  25. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.
  26. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis (STORM). Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–589.
  27. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, et al. One-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone screening modality. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(1):184–190.
  28. Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized images versus FFDM. Radiology. 2018;287(1):37–46.
  29. Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen ÅS, et al. DBT and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography. Radiology. 2018;287(3):787–794.
  30. Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2018;288(2):375–385.
  31. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, et al. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):687–693.
  32. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694–700.
  33. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2015;274(1):85–92.
  34. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of DBT. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):dju316.
  35. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, et al. Changes in recall type following implementation of DBT. Radiology. 2015;274(2):337–342.
  36. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas: Mammography. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
  37. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg; 2006.
  38. Hofvind S, Geller B, Skaane P. Mammographic features of interval breast cancers. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(9):975–981.
  39. Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, et al. Results from the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489–496.
  40. Kopans DB, Rusby JE. Cutaneous caves and subcutaneous adipose columns. Radiology. 2008;249(3):779–784.
  41. Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Homer MJ, et al. Dermal deposits mistaken for breast calcifications. Radiology. 1983;149(2):592–594.
  42. Conant EF. Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52(3):499–518.
  43. Friedewald SM, Young VA, Gupta D. Lesion localization using the scroll bar on tomosynthesis. Clin Imaging. 2018;47:57–64.
  44. Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Characterization of microcalcifications on DBT. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(1):9–14.
  45. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on DBT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–324.
  46. Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, et al. Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with DBT. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(1):319–329.
  47. Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB. Detection of occult architectural distortion on DBT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(1):216–222.
  48. Dibble EH, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, et al. Comparison of DM and DBT in architectural distortion. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(1):3–10.
  49. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers. Radiology. 1996;199(3):811–817.
  50. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of synthesized 2D mammography. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730–736.
  51. Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, et al. Clinical performance of synthesized 2D mammography. Radiology. 2017;283(1):70–77. 52. Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, et al. Concurrent computer-aided detection in DBT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):685–694. 53. Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, et al. Screening CEDM versus MRI in high-risk women. Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:37–43.