Marcia Koomen

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone.MethodsOne hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale.ResultsThe average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases.ConclusionsDual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.

A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection

PURPOSE To determine the speed, accuracy, ease of use, and user satisfaction of various electronic data entry platforms for use in the collection of mammography clinical trials data. METHOD AND MATERIALS Four electronic data entry platforms were tested: standalone personal digital assistant (PDA), Tablet PC, digitizer Tablet/PDA Hybrid (DTP Hybrid), and digital pen (d-pen). Standard paper data entry was used as control. Each of five radiologist readers was assigned to enter interpretations for 20 screening mammograms using three out of the five data entry methods. Assistants recorded both start and stop data entry times of the radiologists and the number of help requests made. Data were checked for handwriting recognition accuracy for the d-pen platform using handwriting verification software. A user satisfaction survey was administered at the end of each platform reading session. RESULTS Tablet PC and d-pen were statistically equivalent to conventional pen and paper in initial data entry speed. Average verification time for d-pen was significantly less than secondary electronic data entry of paper forms (p-value <0.001). The number of errors in handwriting recognition for d-pen was less than secondary electronic data entry of the paper forms data. Users were most satisfied with Tablet PC, d-pen, and conventional pen and paper for data entry. CONCLUSIONS Tablet PC and d-pen are equally fast and easy-to-use data entry methods that are well tolerated by radiologist users. Handwriting recognition review and correction for the d-pen is significantly faster and more accurate than secondary manual keyboard and mouse data entry.

Comparison of Calcification Specificity in Digital Mammography Using Soft-Copy Display Versus Screen-Film Mammography

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imagings SenoScan (n = 71), Lorads digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcares Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Students t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Cancer Cases from ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Radiologist Analysis with Use of a Logistic Regression Model

PURPOSE To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results. MATERIALS AND METHODS This project was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seven radiologist readers reviewed the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factors that contributed to lesion visibility on both types of images. Two multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the combined and condensed visibility ratings assigned by the readers to the paired digital and screen-film images. RESULTS Readers most frequently attributed differences in DMIST cancer visibility to variations in image contrast--not differences in positioning or compression--between digital and screen-film mammography. The odds of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with dense breasts than for women with nondense breasts, even with the data adjusted for patient age, lesion type, and mammography system (odds ratio, 2.28; P < .0001). The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible at digital and screen-film mammography--were significantly greater for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with the Fischer (P = .0070) and Fuji (P = .0070) devices. CONCLUSION The significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammography, in women with dense breasts demonstrated in the DMIST was most likely attributable to differences in image contrast, which were most likely due to the inherent system performance improvements that are available with digital mammography. The authors conclude that the DMIST results were attributable primarily to differences in the display and acquisition characteristics of the mammography devices rather than to reader variability.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer

A review of the literature on the current applications of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indications, their rationale and their place in diagnosis and management of breast cancer was given. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is developing as a valuable adjunct to mammography and sonography. Its high sensitivity for invasive breast cancer establishes its superiority in evaluation of multifocality/multicentricity, tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, detection of recurrence, and staging. Emerging applications include spectroscopy, usage of new contrast agents, and MRI-guided interventions, including noninvasive treatment of breast cancer. Its potential benefit in screening high-risk women has yet to be established with prospective studies, particularly with regard to false positive results.

Future directions in breast imaging.

Breast cancer imaging has improved dramatically over the last decade, with higher and more uniform quality standards for mammography, the increasinguse of sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the widespread availability of imaging-guided percutaneous biopsy for clinically occult disease. This review paper describes the limitations that exist in the current state of the art for breast cancer imaging for detection and diagnosis. Four broad areas of future investigation are described in detail. First, we discuss the use of newer versions of mammography, such as digital mammography, with tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography. Secondly, new screening for occult disease might be improved through individualized strategies that stratify by patient risk, for example, through more rigorous screening with new and different tools for women at high risk. Third, the use of tools that might be useful for less invasive therapy of breast cancer with imaging to monitor the efficacy of the therapy is discussed. Finally, we describe the use of imaging tomonitor and adjust neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens in the course of therapy for advanced breast cancers when the risk of death is high.

Comparison of Image Acquisition and Radiologist Interpretation Times in a Diagnostic Mammography Center

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the acquisition and interpretation times of screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography in a diagnostic mammography center. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in three phases for patients presenting for clinical diagnostic workup to a mammography clinic. In the first phase, technologist acquisition and processing times and radiologist interpretation time were measured for patients imaged with a screen-film mammographic system. During the second phase of the study, times were measured for patients imaged with a direct radiographic digital mammographic system, with interpretation performed on a soft-copy display system. During the third phase, 3 months after installation of the soft-copy display system, times were measured again for patients imaged on the same direct radiographic digital mammographic system, with interpretation with the same soft-copy system. The same four experienced breast imaging radiologists and seven technologists participated in all phases of the study. All data were entered into a database, and statistical analysis was conducted using weighted linear models and logarithmic transformation. RESULTS Times were obtained for 295 patients. There were 100 patients each for phases 1 and 2 and 95 patients for phase 3. Diagnostic mammographic acquisition times with processing were 13.02 min/case for screen film (phase 1), 8.16 min/case for digital (phase 2), and 10.66 min/case for digital (phase 3) (P < .001 and P < .0001, respectively). In addition, the radiologist interpretation time for digital mammography in both phases was not significantly different from that for film mammography (P = .2853 and P = .2893, respectively). There was no significant difference between phases 2 and 3 (P = 1.0000). The mean interpretation times were 3.75 min/case for screen film, 2.14 min/case for digital (phase 2), and 2.26 min/case for digital (phase 3). CONCLUSIONS Digital mammography significantly shortened the acquisition time for diagnostic mammography. There was no significant difference in interpretation time compared to screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography setting.

Effect of Breast Compression on Lesion Characteristic Visibility with Diffraction-Enhanced Imaging

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Conventional mammography can not distinguish between transmitted, scattered, or refracted x-rays, thus requiring breast compression to decrease tissue depth and separate overlapping structures. Diffraction-enhanced imaging (DEI) uses monochromatic x-rays and perfect crystal diffraction to generate images with contrast based on absorption, refraction, or scatter. Because DEI possesses inherently superior contrast mechanisms, the current study assesses the effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with DEI imaging of breast specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven breast tissue specimens, containing a total of 21 regions of interest, were imaged by DEI uncompressed, half-compressed, or fully compressed. A fully compressed DEI image was displayed on a soft-copy mammography review workstation, next to a DEI image acquired with reduced compression, maintaining all other imaging parameters. Five breast imaging radiologists scored image quality metrics considering known lesion pathology, ranking their findings on a 7-point Likert scale. RESULTS When fully compressed DEI images were compared to those acquired with approximately a 25% difference in tissue thickness, there was no difference in scoring of lesion feature visibility. For fully compressed DEI images compared to those acquired with approximately a 50% difference in tissue thickness, across the five readers, there was a difference in scoring of lesion feature visibility. The scores for this difference in tissue thickness were significantly different at one rocking curve position and for benign lesion characterizations. These results should be verified in a larger study because when evaluating the radiologist scores overall, we detected a significant difference between the scores reported by the five radiologists. CONCLUSIONS Reducing the need for breast compression might increase patient comfort during mammography. Our results suggest that DEI may allow a reduction in compression without substantially compromising clinical image quality.

X-ray tube-based diffraction enhanced imaging prototype images of full-thickness breast specimens: reader study evaluation

Conventional mammographic image contrast is derived from x-ray absorption, resulting in breast structure visualization due to density gradients that attenuate radiation without distinction between transmitted and scattered or refracted x-rays. This leads to image blurring and contrast reduction, hindering the early detection of small or otherwise occult cancers. Diffraction enhanced imaging (DEI) allows for dramatically increased contrast with decreased radiation dose compared to conventional mammographic imaging due to monochromatic x-rays, its unique refraction-based contrast mechanism and excellent scatter rejection. However, a lingering drawback to the clinical translation of DEI has been the requirement for synchrotron radiation. Our laboratory developed a DEI prototype (DEI-PR) utilizing a readily available Tungsten xray tube source and traditional DEI crystal optics, providing soft tissue images at 60keV. To demonstrate the clinical utility of our DEI-PR, we acquired images of full-thickness human breast tissue specimens on synchrotron-based DEI, DEI-PR and digital mammography systems. A reader study was designed to allow unbiased assessment of system performance when analyzing three systems with dissimilar imaging parameters and requiring analysis of images unfamiliar to radiologists. A panel of expert radiologists evaluated lesion feature visibility and histopathology correlation after receiving training on the interpretation of refraction contrast mammographic images. Preliminary data analysis suggests that our DEI system performed roughly equivalently with the traditional DEI system, demonstrating a significant step toward clinical translation of this modality for breast cancer applications.