Kenneth C. Young

Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol

The UK and European protocols for mammographic dosimetry use conversion factors that relate incident air kerma to the mean glandular dose (MGD) within the breast. The conversion factors currently used were obtained by computer simulation of a model breast with a composition of 50% adipose and 50% glandular tissues by weight (50% glandularity). Relative conversion factors have been calculated which allow the extension of the protocols to breasts of varying glandularity and for a wider range of mammographic x-ray spectra. The data have also been extended to breasts of a compressed thickness of 11 cm. To facilitate the calculation of MGD in patient surveys, typical breast glandularities are tabulated for women in the age ranges 40-49 and 50-64 years, and for breasts in the thickness range 2-11 cm. In addition, tables of equivalent thickness of polymethyl methacrylate have been provided to allow the simulation for dosimetric purposes of typical breasts of various thicknesses.

Further factors for the estimation of mean glandular dose using the United Kingdom, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols

The United Kingdom, European and IAEA protocols for breast dosimetry in mammography make use of s-factors which allow for the use of different target/filter combinations. To supplement the existing protocols, a Monte Carlo computer program has been used to calculate s-factors for mammography using a tungsten target with silver filters of thicknesses 50-75 microm and for the same target filtered with 0.5 mm aluminium. The dosimetry protocols use slabs of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) of specified thicknesses to simulate the exposure of typical breasts. The equivalent thickness of PMMA has been calculated using a simplified approach for a wider range of x-ray spectra and for breast thicknesses of 2-11 cm. The results show that for the tungsten/silver target/filter combination, a single s-factor of 1.042 can be used with the protocols, but when the tungsten target is filtered with 0.5 mm of aluminium, it is necessary to select from a tabulation of s-factors against breast thickness. The equivalent thicknesses of PMMA for a given breast thickness show some dependence on beam quality and the values obtained differ from those presently used in the dosimetry protocols by an amount which depends upon breast thickness and half value layer (HVL). For the extreme case of an 11 cm breast and an HVL of 0.62 mm Al, the use of the protocol thickness would give rise to an error of 10%, but for breast thicknesses of 6 cm or less, the error is typically 2-3%.

Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols

A formalism is proposed for the estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis, which is a simple extension of the UK, European and IAEA protocols for dosimetry in conventional projection mammography. The formalism introduces t-factors for the calculation of breast dose from a single projection and T-factors for a complete exposure series. Monte Carlo calculations of t-factors have been made for an imaging geometry with full-field irradiation of the breast for a wide range of x-ray spectra, breast sizes and glandularities. The t-factors show little dependence on breast glandularity and tables are provided as a function of projection angle and breast thickness, which may be used for all x-ray spectra simulated. The T-factors for this geometry depend upon the choice of projection angles and weights per projection, but various example calculations gave values in the range 0.93-1.00. T-factors are also provided for the Sectra tomosynthesis system, which employs a scanned narrow-beam imaging geometry. In this quite different configuration, the factor (denoted T(S)) shows an important dependence on breast thickness, varying between 0.98 and 0.76 for 20 and 110 mm thick breasts, respectively. Additional data are given to extend the current tabulations of g-, c- and s-factors used for dosimetry of conventional 2D mammography.

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.

BACKGROUND Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a three-dimensional mammography technique with the potential to improve accuracy by improving differentiation between malignant and non-malignant lesions. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of DBT in conjunction with two-dimensional (2D) mammography or synthetic 2D mammography, against standard 2D mammography and to determine if DBT improves the accuracy of detection of different types of lesions. STUDY POPULATION Women (aged 47-73 years) recalled for further assessment after routine breast screening and women (aged 40-49 years) with moderate/high of risk of developing breast cancer attending annual mammography screening were recruited after giving written informed consent. INTERVENTION All participants underwent a two-view 2D mammography of both breasts and two-view DBT imaging. Image-processing software generated a synthetic 2D mammogram from the DBT data sets. RETROSPECTIVE READING STUDY In an independent blinded retrospective study, readers reviewed (1) 2D or (2) 2D + DBT or (3) synthetic 2D + DBT images for each case without access to original screening mammograms or prior examinations. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for each reading arm and by subgroup analyses. RESULTS Data were available for 7060 subjects comprising 6020 (1158 cancers) assessment cases and 1040 (two cancers) family history screening cases. Overall sensitivity was 87% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85% to 89%] for 2D only, 89% (95% CI 87% to 91%) for 2D + DBT and 88% (95% CI 86% to 90%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. The difference in sensitivity between 2D and 2D + DBT was of borderline significance (p = 0.07) and for synthetic 2D + DBT there was no significant difference (p = 0.6). Specificity was 58% (95% CI 56% to 60%) for 2D, 69% (95% CI 67% to 71%) for 2D + DBT and 71% (95% CI 69% to 73%) for synthetic 2D + DBT. Specificity was significantly higher in both DBT reading arms for all subgroups of age, density and dominant radiological feature (p < 0.001 all cases). In all reading arms, specificity tended to be lower for microcalcifications and higher for distortion/asymmetry. Comparing 2D + DBT to 2D alone, sensitivity was significantly higher: 93% versus 86% (p < 0.001) for invasive tumours of size 11-20 mm. Similarly, for breast density 50% or more, sensitivities were 93% versus 86% (p = 0.03); for grade 2 invasive tumours, sensitivities were 91% versus 87% (p = 0.01); where the dominant radiological feature was a mass, sensitivities were 92% and 89% (p = 0.04) For synthetic 2D + DBT, there was significantly (p = 0.006) higher sensitivity than 2D alone in invasive cancers of size 11-20 mm, with a sensitivity of 91%. CONCLUSIONS The specificity of DBT and 2D was better than 2D alone but there was only marginal improvement in sensitivity. The performance of synthetic 2D appeared to be comparable to standard 2D. If these results were observed with screening cases, DBT and 2D mammography could benefit to the screening programme by reducing the number of women recalled unnecessarily, especially if a synthetic 2D mammogram were used to minimise radiation exposure. Further research is required into the feasibility of implementing DBT in a screening setting, prognostic modelling on outcomes and mortality, and comparison of 2D and synthetic 2D for different lesion types. STUDY REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73467396. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancers

From its inception, the UK National Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) has recognized that optimum image quality of the mammographic screening test is a key objective. The overall optical density of the mammography film is one of the factors expected to have a significant effect on the image quality of the mammogram with the potential to influence cancer detection. In a previous review of the performance of mammography equipment in the NHSBSP, it was observed that there was a very wide range in the mammographic film densities used at different breast screening centres. In this study a mammography test object was used to show experimentally that, for a typical mammography system, image quality increased substantially with increased film density. Summary data was therefore requested from radiologists in the NHSBSP on the rate of detection of small invasive cancers (diam. < or = 10 mm) and the typical film density used during that year. Proforma were completed for 61 annual sets of results from 31 screening centres involving over 500,000 women. Where centres reported using film densities of less than 1.2D the average small cancer detection rate was 0.12% +/- 0.01%, as compared to an average of 0.17% +/- 0.01% for centres using higher film densities. The results indicate that there is a need for national guidelines in the setting of film densities, and a range for target film densities of 1.4D to 1.8D has been suggested. Attention to optimizing image quality by increasing film density is of particular importance to any screening centre where film densities of less than 1.2D are used, as there may be the potential to increase the detection of small breast cancers by as much as 50%.

Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems

European Guidelines for quality control in digital mammography specify minimum and achievable standards of image quality in terms of threshold contrast, based on readings of images of the CDMAM test object by human observers. However this is time-consuming and has large inter-observer error. To overcome these problems a software program (CDCOM) is available to automatically read CDMAM images, but the optimal method of interpreting the output is not defined. This study evaluates methods of determining threshold contrast from the program, and compares these to human readings for a variety of mammography systems. The methods considered are (A) simple thresholding (B) psychometric curve fitting (C) smoothing and interpolation and (D) smoothing and psychometric curve fitting. Each method leads to similar threshold contrasts but with different reproducibility. Method (A) had relatively poor reproducibility with a standard error in threshold contrast of 18.1 ± 0.7%. This was reduced to 8.4% by using a contrast-detail curve fitting procedure. Method (D) had the best reproducibility with an error of 6.7%, reducing to 5.1% with curve fitting. A panel of 3 human observers had an error of 4.4% reduced to 2.9 % by curve fitting. All automatic methods led to threshold contrasts that were lower than for humans. The ratio of human to program threshold contrasts varied with detail diameter and was 1.50 ± .04 (sem) at 0.1mm and 1.82 ± .06 at 0.25mm for method (D). There were good correlations between the threshold contrast determined by humans and the automated methods.

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial)

PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) mammography, 2D mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT in depicting malignant radiographic features. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study (the TOMMY trial), after written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean, 56 years) were recruited from July 2011 to March 2013 in an ethically approved study. From these women, a reading dataset of 7060 cases was randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammography images, (b) 2D mammography plus DBT images, and (c) synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT images. Reviewers had no access to results of previous examinations. Overall sensitivities and specificities were calculated for younger women and those with dense breasts. RESULTS Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT. The addition of DBT was associated with a 34% increase in the odds of depicting cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P = .06); however, this level did not achieve significance. For patients aged 50-59 years old, sensitivity was significantly higher (P = .01) for 2D mammography plus DBT than it was for 2D mammography. For those with breast density of 50% or more, sensitivity was 86% for 2D mammography compared with 93% for 2D mammography plus DBT (P = .03). Specificity was 57% for 2D mammography, 70% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 72% for synthetic 2D mammography plusmDBT. Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for all subgroups (P < .001 for all cases). CONCLUSION The addition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups. The use of synthetic 2D DBT demonstrated performance similar to that of standard 2D mammography with DBT. DBT is of potential benefit to screening programs, particularly in younger women with dense breasts. (©) RSNA, 2015.

Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems

European Guidelines for quality control in digital mammography specify minimum and achievable standards of image quality in terms of threshold contrast, based on readings of images of the CDMAM test object by human observers. However this is time-consuming and has large inter- and intra-observer error. To overcome these problems a software program (CDCOM) is available to automatically read CDMAM images. After some further analysis the automated measurements can be used to predict the threshold contrast for a typical observer. The results of threshold contrast determination by human observers at three different centres were compared against automated readings. These data provide a means of predicting average human performance using the automated reading software. The coefficient of variation in automatically determined threshold gold thickness was about 4% for detail sizes from 0.2 to 1.0mm when 8 images were analysed. The coefficient of variation was about 10% at a detail size of 0.1mm. Using larger numbers of images improved reproducibility for all detail sizes. A change in phantom design could greatly improve reproducibility for the smallest detail sizes. Greater consistency of phantom construction would also be desirable as one of the four phantoms tested was significantly different from the other three. Despite some limitations automated reading of CDMAM images can provide a reproducible means of assessing digital mammography systems against European Guidelines.

Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.

PURPOSE This study aims to investigate if microcalcification detection varies significantly when mammographic images are acquired using different image qualities, including: different detectors, dose levels, and different image processing algorithms. An additional aim was to determine how the standard European method of measuring image quality using threshold gold thickness measured with a CDMAM phantom and the associated limits in current EU guidelines relate to calcification detection. METHODS One hundred and sixty two normal breast images were acquired on an amorphous selenium direct digital (DR) system. Microcalcification clusters extracted from magnified images of slices of mastectomies were electronically inserted into half of the images. The calcification clusters had a subtle appearance. All images were adjusted using a validated mathematical method to simulate the appearance of images from a computed radiography (CR) imaging system at the same dose, from both systems at half this dose, and from the DR system at quarter this dose. The original 162 images were processed with both Hologic and Agfa (Musica-2) image processing. All other image qualities were processed with Agfa (Musica-2) image processing only. Seven experienced observers marked and rated any identified suspicious regions. Free response operating characteristic (FROC) and ROC analyses were performed on the data. The lesion sensitivity at a nonlesion localization fraction (NLF) of 0.1 was also calculated. Images of the CDMAM mammographic test phantom were acquired using the automatic setting on the DR system. These images were modified to the additional image qualities used in the observer study. The images were analyzed using automated software. In order to assess the relationship between threshold gold thickness and calcification detection a power law was fitted to the data. RESULTS There was a significant reduction in calcification detection using CR compared with DR: the alternative FROC (AFROC) area decreased from 0.84 to 0.63 and the ROC area decreased from 0.91 to 0.79 (p < 0.0001). This corresponded to a 30% drop in lesion sensitivity at a NLF equal to 0.1. Detection was also sensitive to the dose used. There was no significant difference in detection between the two image processing algorithms used (p > 0.05). It was additionally found that lower threshold gold thickness from CDMAM analysis implied better cluster detection. The measured threshold gold thickness passed the acceptable limit set in the EU standards for all image qualities except half dose CR. However, calcification detection varied significantly between image qualities. This suggests that the current EU guidelines may need revising. CONCLUSIONS Microcalcification detection was found to be sensitive to detector and dose used. Standard measurements of image quality were a good predictor of microcalcification cluster detection.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool

Breast screening with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) fails to detect 15-30% of cancers. This figure is higher for women with dense breasts. A new tomographic technique in mammography has been developed--digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)--which allows images to be viewed in sections through the breast and has the potential to improve cancer detection rates. Results from retrospective reading studies comparing DBT with FFDM have been largely favourable with improvement in sensitivity and specificity. Increases in diagnostic accuracy have been reported as being independent of breast density; however there are mixed reports regarding the detection of microcalcification. Prospective screening studies using DBT with FFDM have demonstrated increased rates in cancer detection compared with FFDM alone. A reduction in false-positive recall rates has also been shown. Screening with the addition of DBT would approximately double radiation dose; however a simulated FFDM image can be generated from a DBT scan. The combination of simulated FFDM images and DBT is being evaluated within several studies and some positive results have been published. Interval cancer rates for the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) demonstrate the limited sensitivity of FFDM in cancer detection. DBT has the potential to increase sensitivity and decrease false-positive recall rates. It has approval for screening and diagnostics in several countries; however, there are issues with DBT as a screening tool including additional reading time, IT storage and connectivity, over-diagnosis, and cost effectiveness. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness trials are needed before the implementation of DBT in NHSBSP can be considered.