ACR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS (DBT)

PREAMBLE

INTRODUCTION

II.

INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

III.

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

III.

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

Physician

III.

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

Qualified Medical Physicist

III.

QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

Radiologic Technologist

IV.

SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

DOCUMENTATION

VI.

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

VII.

QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT, SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, AND PATIENT EDUCATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES

1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 14(7):583-9, 2013 Jun.
2. Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density. JAMA Oncology. 5(5):635-642, 2019 May 01.
3. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 311(24):2499-507, 2014 Jun 25.
4. Houssami N, Miglioretti DL. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Brave New World of Mammography Screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 01;2(6):725-7.
5. Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 110(9):942-949, 2018 09 01.
6. Richman IB, Long JB, Hoag JR, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 113(11):1515-1522, 2021 11 02.
7. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47-56.
8. Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts. JAMA. 315(16):1784-6, 2016 Apr 26.
9. Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Dang PA, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, Lehman CD. Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Are Initial Benefits Sustained?. Radiology. 295(3):529-539, 2020 06.
10. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncology. 2(6):737-43, 2016 Jun 01.
11. Bahl M, Gaffney S, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, Dang PA, Lehman CD. Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers. Radiology. 287(1):49-57, 2018 Apr.
12. Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K, et al. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Research & Treatment. 170(2):391-397, 2018 Jul.
13. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 106(11), 2014 Nov.
14. Johnson K, Zackrisson S, Rosso A, et al. Tumor Characteristics and Molecular Subtypes in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: The Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 293(2):273-281, 2019 11.
15. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, et al. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 291(1):23-30, 2019 04.Radiology. 291(1):23-30, 2019 04.
16. Johnson K, Lang K, Ikeda DM, Akesson A, Andersson I, Zackrisson S. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Tumor Characteristics in the Prospective Population-based Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 299(3):559-567, 2021 06.
17. 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.
18. Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ, et al. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:226-31.
19. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 266(1):89-95, 2013 Jan.
20. Porembka JH, Seiler SJ, Sharifi A, et al. Diagnostic Evaluation of Recalled Noncalcified Lesions Using Ultrasound Alone Versus Ultrasound Plus Additional Mammographic Views: A Prospective Study. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 218(6):977-987, 2022 06.
21. Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. European Radiology. 29(2):477-484, 2019 Feb.
22. Bahl M, Lamb LR, Lehman CD. Pathologic Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Digital 2D Versus Tomosynthesis Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Nov;209(5):1162-1167.
23. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 274(2):337-42, 2015 Feb.
24. McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, Conant EF. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Radiology. 285(3):778-787, 2017 12.
25. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, et al. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time. Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):54-61.
26. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=8+&releaseId=2
27. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The mammography quality standards act final regulations: modification and additions to policy guidance help system #12. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/73962/download. Accessed October 24, 2022.
28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Interpreting physician new mammographic modality training. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/mammographyqualitystandardsactandprogram/guidance/policyguidancehelpsystem/ucm052165.htm. Accessed February 16, 2017.
29. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. There is a requirement for 8 hours of training for any new mammographic modality before an interpreting physician may begin independently interpreting mammograms produced by this new mammographic modality. If the physician did not have this training during resiency, would it have to be a category 1 continuing education? Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/Guidance/PolicyGuidanceHelpSystem/ucm136920.htm. Accessed February 16, 2017.
30. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Sample residency letter final regulations. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/mqsa-inspection-resources/sample-residency-letter-final-regulations-mqsa.
31. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) system. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityCertificationandInspection/ucm413117.htm. Accessed February 16, 2017.
32. Gao Y, Moy L, Heller SL. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update on Technology, Evidence, and Clinical Practice. Radiographics. 41(2):321-337, 2021 Mar-Apr.
33. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. [Review]. Breast. 24(2):93-9, 2015 Apr.
34. Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, Holt JS. Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. Radiology. 283(1):70-76, 2017 04.
35. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 271(3):655-63, 2014 Jun.
36. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. Radiology. 281(3):730-736, 2016 Dec.
37. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271:664-71.
38. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise. Digital breast tomosynthesis extension (DBT extension). Rev. 1.3 - Trial Implementation; ; 2016.
39. Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN. Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. Breast Journal. 21(5):538-42, 2015 Sep-Oct.
40. Bahl M, Maunglay M, D'Alessandro HA, Lehman CD. Comparison of Upright Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided versus Prone Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy. Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):298-304.
41. Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2015;274(3):654-662.
42. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic/Tomosynthesis-Guided Breast Interventional Procedures. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=65+&releaseId=2
43. American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=74+&releaseId=2
44. American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Parameter for Determinants of Image Quality in Mammography. Available at https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=140+&releaseId=2