Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digitale Tomosynthese der Mamma

Digital breast tomosynthesis

  • CME Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Bei der digitalen Tomosynthese der Mamma werden aus mehreren Niedrigdosisaufnahmen, die aus verschiedenen Winkeln aufgenommen werden, durch Rechenalgorithmen Schichten synthetischer Mammographiebilder erzeugt. Ähnlich wie in der Schnittbildgebung kann das Brustdrüsengewebe auf den Schichtbildern nahezu überlagerungsfrei dargestellt werden. Insbesondere bei hoher mammographischer Brustdichte können so Summationseffekte von echten Herdbefunden differenziert und Architekturstörungen besser sichtbar gemacht werden. Dadurch ist die Tomosynthese im Vergleich zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie in der Lage, die Karzinomdetektionsrate zu erhöhen und die Anzahl von Kontrolluntersuchungen zu reduzieren. Nachteilig sind die im Vergleich zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie höhere Strahlendosis und die längere Befundungsdauer der Tomosynthese. In Deutschland wird die Tomosynthese als zusätzliches Verfahren zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie in der Abklärung unklarer mammographischer Befunde eingesetzt.

Abstract

In digital breast tomosynthesis several low dose mammograms are acquired from different angles to calculate thin slices of synthetic mammograms from algorithms. Similar to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, breast tomosynthesis provides breast images which are virtually free from superimposition. This is in particular important in cases of high mammographic density to differentiate real masses and architectural distortions from the overlying parenchyma. In comparison to full field digital mammography tomosynthesis can improve the cancer detection rate and reduce the recall rate. The limitations of tomosynthesis are the higher radiation dose and the longer reporting time compared to full field digital mammography. Until the radiation dose can be significantly reduced it is advisable to use tomosynthesis in addition to full field digital mammography primarily for the assessment of suspicious mammographic findings and not for breast cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der AWMF, Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e. V. und Deutschen Krebshilfe e. V. (Hrsg) (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. 3. Aufl. Zuckerschwerdt, Germering

  2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. US Food and Drug Administration. Selenia Dimensions 3D System-P080003. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/p080003a.pdf. Zugegriffen: 18. Nov. 2014

  4. Hardesty LA, Kreidler SM, Glueck DH (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 11:594–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (2014) Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Systems, Draft Version 0.15

  6. Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Semturs F, Sturm E, Gruber R et al (2010) Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems. Radiologe 50:982–990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Schie G, Mann R, Imhof-Tas M et al (2013) Generating synthetic mammograms from reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging [Epub ahead of print]

  12. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA et al (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Förnvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morel JC, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2014) The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. Clin Radiol 69:1112–1116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mercier J, Kwiatkowski F, Abrial C et al (2014) The role of tomosynthesis in breast cancer staging in 75 patients. Diagn Interv Imaging [Epub ahead of print]

  19. Margolies L, Cohen A, Sonnenblick E et al (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center. ISRN Radiol 2014:658929

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. Am J Roentgenol 195:W172–W176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gennaro G, Toledano A, Maggio C di et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F et al (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ et al (2013) Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. Am J Roentgenol 200:226–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baker JA, Lo JY (2011) Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 18:1298–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Viala J, Gignier P, Perret B et al (2013) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies on a digital breast 3D-tomosynthesis system. Breast J 19:4–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin SU, Chang JM, Bae MS et al (2014) Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol 25:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 184:911–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Perry N, Broeders M, Wolf C de et al (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition – summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Malliori A, Bliznakova K, Sechopoulos I et al (2014) Breast tomosynthesis with monochromatic beams: a feasibility study using Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol 59:4681–4696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL et al (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. H. Preibsch und K.C. Siegmann-Luz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland

    H. Preibsch

  2. Diagnostisches Brustzentrum und Mammografiescreening Brandenburg Ost, Königs Wusterhausen, Deutschland

    K.C. Siegmann-Luz

Authors
  1. H. Preibsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K.C. Siegmann-Luz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Preibsch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Preibsch, H., Siegmann-Luz, K. Digitale Tomosynthese der Mamma. Radiologe 55, 59–70 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-014-2753-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-014-2753-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation