Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Addition to Conventional 2D-Mammography Reduces Recall Rates and is Cost-Effective

  • Published : 2016.07.01


Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a breast cancer screening modality, through generation of three-dimensional images during standard mammographic compression, can reduce interference from breast tissue overlap, increasing conspicuity of invasive cancers while concomitantly reducing false-positive results. We here conducted a systematic review on previous studies to synthesize the evidence of DBT efficacy, eventually 18 articles being included in the analysis. The most commonly emerging topics were advantages of DBT screening tool in terms of recall rates, cancer detection rates and cost-effectiveness, preventing unnecessary burdens on women and the healthcare system. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential impact of DBT on longer-term outcomes, such as interval cancer rates and mortality, to better understand the broader clinical and economic implications of its adoption.


  1. Alcusky M, Philpotts L, Bonafede M, Clarke J, Skoufalos A (2014). The patient burden of screening mammography recall. J Womens Health, 23, 11-9.
  2. Bonafede MM, Kalra VB, Miller JD, Fajardo LL (2015). Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res, 12, 53-63.
  3. 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, 1174-78.
  4. 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, 583-89.
  5. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al (2016). Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 156, 109-16.
  6. Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R (2014). Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci, 4, 9.
  7. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, et al (2015). Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiol, 274, 85-92.
  8. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al (2014). Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA, 311, 2499-507.
  9. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, et al (2015). The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS breast screening programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess, 19.
  10. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016). Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol, 71, 141-50.
  11. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014). Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 203, 687-93.
  12. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, et al (2013). Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiol, 269, 694-700.
  13. Hubbard RA, Zhu W, Horblyuk R, et al (2013). Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screenfilm and digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 138, 879-87.
  14. Kalra V, Haas B, Forman H, Philpotts L (2012). Costeffectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis. Abstract presented at the Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA. Available from:
  15. Kalra V, Haas B, Philpotts L (2013). Cost-effectiveness of tomosythesis in screening mammography: analysis by breast density and patient age. Abstract presented at the Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA. Available from:
  16. Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, et al (2016). Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol, 26, 184-90.
  17. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al (2015). Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiol, 274, 772-80.
  18. Lee CI, Lehman CD (2013). Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice. J Am Coll Radiol, 10, 913-7.
  19. Lee DW, Stang PE, Goldberg GA, Haberman M (2009). Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer. Breast J, 15, 85-92.
  20. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015). Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol, 274, 337-42.
  21. McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, et al (2015). Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol, 205, 1143-8.
  22. Ong MS, Mandl KD (2015). National expenditure for falsepositive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year. Health Aff, 34, 576-83.
  23. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, et al (2013). Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol, 200, 1401-8.
  24. Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R (2007). Evidencebased target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiol, 243, 681-89.
  25. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al (2013). Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol, 23, 2061-71.
  26. American Cancer Society (2016). Cancer facts & figures 2016, Atlanta. Accessible at:
  27. Sumkin JH Ganott MA, Chough DM, et al (2015). Recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis during baseline screening examinations: an assessment from a prospective trial. Acad Radiol, 22, 1477-82.
  28. Taif S, Tufail F, Alnuaimi AS (2014). Mammography performance in Oman: Review of factors influencing cancer yield and positive predictive value. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol, 12, 250-8.