These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evidence on Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Versus Digital Mammography When Using Tomosynthesis (Three-dimensional Mammography) for Population Breast Cancer Screening.
    Author: Houssami N.
    Journal: Clin Breast Cancer; 2018 Aug; 18(4):255-260.e1. PubMed ID: 29066138.
    Abstract:
    One limitation of using digital breast tomosynthesis (3-dimensional [3D] mammography) technology with conventional (2-dimensional [2D]) mammography for breast cancer (BC) screening is the increased radiation dose from dual acquisitions. To resolve this problem, synthesized 2D (s2D) reconstruction images similar to 2D mammography were developed using tomosynthesis acquisitions. The present review summarizes the evidence for s2D versus digital mammography (2D) when using tomosynthesis (3D) for BC screening to address whether using s2D instead of 2D (alongside 3D) will yield similar detection measures. Comparative population screening studies have provided consistent evidence that cancer detection rates do not differ between integrated 2D/3D (range, 5.45-8.5/1000 screens) and s2D/3D (range, 5.03-8.8/1000 screens). Also, although the recall measures were relatively heterogeneous across included studies, little difference was found between the 2 modalities. The mean glandular dose for s2D/3D was 55% to 58% of that for 2D/3D. In the context of BC screening, s2D/3D involves substantially less radiation than 2D/3D and provides similar detection measures. Thus, consideration of transitioning to tomosynthesis screening should aim to use s2D/3D to minimize harm.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]