R. Edward Hendrick

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital versus Film Mammography: Exploratory Analysis of Selected Population Subgroups in DMIST

PURPOSE To retrospectively compare the accuracy of digital versus film mammography in population subgroups of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) defined by combinations of age, menopausal status, and breast density, by using either biopsy results or follow-up information as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS DMIST included women who underwent both digital and film screening mammography. Institutional review board approval at all participating sites and informed consent from all participating women in compliance with HIPAA was obtained for DMIST and this retrospective analysis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for each modality were compared within each subgroup evaluated (age < 50 vs 50-64 vs >or= 65 years, dense vs nondense breasts at mammography, and pre- or perimenopausal vs postmenopausal status for the two younger age cohorts [10 new subgroups in toto]) while controlling for multiple comparisons (P < .002 indicated a significant difference). All DMIST cancers were evaluated with respect to mammographic detection method (digital vs film vs both vs neither), mammographic lesion type (mass, calcifications, or other), digital machine type, mammographic and pathologic size and diagnosis, existence of prior mammographic study at time of interpretation, months since prior mammographic study, and compressed breast thickness. RESULTS Thirty-three centers enrolled 49 528 women. Breast cancer status was determined for 42,760 women, the group included in this study. Pre- or perimenopausal women younger than 50 years who had dense breasts at film mammography comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (AUCs, 0.79 vs 0.54; P = .0015). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-based sensitivity in this subgroup was 0.59 for digital and 0.27 for film mammography. AUCs were not significantly different in any of the other subgroups. For women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts, the AUC showed a nonsignificant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025). CONCLUSION Digital mammography performed significantly better than film for pre- and perimenopausal women younger than 50 years with dense breasts, but film tended nonsignificantly to perform better for women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts.

Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon‐based flat panel detector: Physical characteristics of a clinical prototype

The physical characteristics of a clinical prototype amorphous silicon-based flat panel imager for full-breast digital mammography have been investigated. The imager employs a thin thallium doped CsI scintillator on an amorphous silicon matrix of detector elements with a pixel pitch of 100 microm. Objective criteria such as modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum, detective quantum efficiency (DQE), and noise equivalent quanta were employed for this evaluation. The presampling MTF was found to be 0.73, 0.42, and 0.28 at 2, 4, and 5 cycles/mm, respectively. The measured DQE of the current prototype utilizing a 28 kVp, Mo-Mo spectrum beam hardened with 4.5 cm Lucite is approximately 55% at close to zero spatial frequency at an exposure of 32.8 mR, and decreases to approximately 40% at a low exposure of 1.3 mR. Detector element nonuniformity and electronic gain variations were not significant after appropriate calibration and software corrections. The response of the imager was linear and did not exhibit signal saturation under tested exposure conditions.

Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies

PURPOSE To compare radiation doses and lifetime attributable risks (LARs) of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving the use of ionizing radiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Recent literature on radiation doses from radiologic procedures and organ doses from nuclear medicine procedures, along with Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII age-dependent risk data, is used to estimate LARs of radiation-induced cancer incidence and mortality from breast imaging studies involving ionizing radiation, including screen-film mammography, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, dedicated breast computed tomography, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI), and positron emission mammography (PEM). RESULTS Two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography involve average mean glandular radiation doses of 3.7 and 4.7 mGy, respectively. According to BEIR VII data, these studies are associated, respectively, with LARs of fatal breast cancer of 1.3 and 1.7 cases per 100,000 women aged 40 years at exposure and less than one case per one million women aged 80 years at exposure. Annual screening digital or screen-film mammography performed in women aged 40-80 years is associated with an LAR of fatal breast cancer of 20-25 cases in 100,000. A single BSGI study involving a label-recommended dose of 740-1100 MBq (20-30 mCi) of technetium 99m-sestamibi is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 20-30 times that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years. A single PEM study involving a labeled dose of 370 MBq (10 mCi) of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose is estimated to involve an LAR of fatal cancer that is 23 times higher than that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years. CONCLUSION A single BSGI or PEM study is associated with a fatal radiation-induced cancer risk higher than or comparable to that of annual screening mammography in women aged 40-80 years.

Basic physics of MR contrast agents and maximization of image contrast

This review summarizes the physical basis of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging contrast agents, including both T1 agents, such as gadolinium‐DTPA (diethylenetri‐aminepentaacetic acid), and T2 or T2* agents, such as superparamagnetic iron oxides. The maximization of image contrast and lesion visibility with contrast agents is described, and the use of contrast agents in MR angiogra‐phy and perfusion imaging is discussed.

Comparison of Acquisition Parameters and Breast Dose in Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial enrolled 49,528 women to compare FFDM and screen-film mammography for screening. For quality assurance purposes, technical parameters including breast compression force, compressed breast thickness, mean glandular dose, and the number of additional views needed for complete breast coverage were recorded and analyzed for both FFDM and screen-film mammography on approximately 10% of study subjects at each site. RESULTS Technical data were compiled on 5,102 study subjects at 33 sites. Clean data were obtained for 4,366 (88%) of those cases. Mean compression force was 10.7 dN for screen-film mammography and 10.1 dN for FFDM (5.5% difference, p < 0.001). Mean compressed breast thickness was 5.3 cm for screen-film mammography and 5.4 cm for FFDM (1.7% difference, p < 0.001). Mean glandular dose per view averaged 2.37 mGy for screen-film mammography and 1.86 mGy for FFDM, 22% lower for digital than screen-film mammography, with sizeable variations among digital manufacturers. Twelve percent of screen-film mammography cases required more than the normal four views, whereas 21% of FFDM cases required more than the four normal views to cover all breast tissue. When extra views were included, mean glandular dose per subject was 4.15 mGy for FFDM and 4.98 mGy for screen-film mammography, 17% lower for FFDM than screen-film mammography. CONCLUSION Our results show that differences between screen-film mammography and FFDM in compression force and indicated compressed breast thickness were small. On average, FFDM had 22% lower mean glandular dose than screen-film mammography per acquired view, with sizeable variations in average FFDM doses by manufacturer.

Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Results of acceptance testing 18 full-field digital mammography systems for clinical use and of conducting annual physics surveys of 38 screen-film mammography systems were compared in terms of exposure times, mean glandular breast doses, and image quality. These evaluations were made using the same test tools on all systems, with emphasis on assessing automatic exposure control performance and image quality on both digital and screen-film systems using clinical techniques. Survey results indicated that digital mammography systems performed similarly to screen-film systems in terms of exposure times and mean glandular doses for thin to intermediate breasts, but that digital mammography systems selected shorter exposure times and lower mean glandular doses for thicker breasts. For all breast thicknesses, digital mammography systems yielded mean contrast-detail scores higher than those for screen-film systems. For all breast thicknesses, the 18 digital mammography systems demonstrated less variance in terms of exposure times, mean glandular doses, and contrast-detail scores than did the 38 screen-film systems tested. These results indicate that the clinical use of digital mammography may generally improve image quality for equal or lower breast doses, while providing tighter control on exposures and image quality than screen-film mammography.

Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: Part I

The Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial, conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, is a clinical trial designed to compare the accuracy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus screen-film mammography in a screening population. Five FFDM systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, General Electric, and Lorad) were employed in the study at 35 clinical sites. A core physics team devised and implemented tests to evaluate these systems. A detailed description of physics and quality control tests is presented, including estimates of: mean glandular dose, modulation transfer function (MTF), 2D noise power spectra, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The mean glandular doses for the standard breast ranged from 0.79 to 2.98 mGy, with 1.62 mGy being the average across all units and machine types. For the five systems evaluated, the MTF dropped to 50% at markedly different percentages (22% to 87%) of the Nyquist limit, indicating that factors other than detector element (del) size have an important effect on spatial resolution. Noise power spectra and SNR were measured; however, we found that it was difficult to standardize and compare these between units. For each machine type, the performance as measured by the tests was very consistent, and no predictive benefit was seen for many of the tests during the 2-year period of the trial. It was found that, after verification of proper operation during acceptance testing, if systems failed they generally did so suddenly rather than through gradual deterioration of performance. Because of the relatively short duration of this study further, investigation of the long-term failure characteristics of these systems is advisable.

Reduction in late‐stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: Implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer

Mammographic screening is expected to decrease the incidence of late‐stage breast cancer. In the current study, the authors determined the decrease in late‐stage cancer incidence and the changes in invasive cancer incidence that occurred in the mammographic era after adjusting for prescreening temporal trends.

Mammography screening: A new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to estimate the number of women needed to screen (NNS) to prevent one breast cancer death and the number needed to screen per life-year gained (NNS/LYG) with annual or biennial screening mammography and to compare NNS to the number needed to invite (NNI) to a screening trial to prevent one breast cancer death. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling results commissioned by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for their 2009 update of breast cancer screening recommendations were used to estimate NNS and NNS/LYG with annual or biennial screening mammography. NNS values were compared with NNI as reported by USPSTF, which used the CISNET results to aid their 2009 recommendation of starting age and screening interval. RESULTS For women between the ages of 40 and 49 years undergoing annual screening mammography, CISNET modeling results estimate an NNS of 746, 39% of the NNI of 1904 estimated by USPSTF on the basis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. The NNS based on CISNET results for women between 50 and 59 years is 351 (26% of the NNI of 1339 estimated by USPSTF from RCT data), for women between 60 and 69 years is 233 (62% of the NNI of 377 estimated by USPSTF from RCT data), and for women between 70 and 79 years is 377. Annual screening of women between 40 and 84 years yields an NNS of 84 and an NNS/LYG of 5.3. Biennial screening of women ages 50-74 yields an NNS of 144 and an NNS/LYG of 9.1. CONCLUSION The NNS based on CISNET modeling results is much smaller than the NNI based on RCT data. Eighty-four women need to be screened annually between 40 and 84 years to save one life from breast cancer and 5.3 need to be screened annually to gain 1 life-year from breast cancer.

Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to compare acquisition times and interpretation times of screening examinations using screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Technologist study acquisition time from examination initiation to release of the screenee was measured for both screen-film and digital mammography (100 cases each) in routine clinical practice. The total interpretation time for screening mammography was also measured for 183 hard-copy screen-film cases and 181 soft-copy digital cases interpreted by a total of seven breast imaging radiologists, four experienced breast imagers, and three breast imaging fellows. RESULTS Screening mammography acquisition time averaged 21.6 minutes for screen-film and 14.1 minutes for digital, a highly significant 35% shorter time for digital than screen-film (p < 10(-17)). The average number of images per case acquired with digital mammography was higher than that for screen-film mammography (4.23 for screen-film, 4.50 for digital; p = 0.047). The total interpretation time averaged 1.4 minutes for screen-film mammography and 2.3 minutes for digital mammography, a highly significant 57% longer interpretation time for digital (p < 10(-11)). In addition, technical problems delaying interpretation were encountered in none of the 183 screen-film cases but occurred in nine (5%) of the 181 digital cases. CONCLUSION Compared with screen-film mammography, the use of digital mammography for screening examinations significantly shortened acquisition time but significantly increased interpretation time. In addition, more technical problems were encountered that delayed the interpretation of digital cases.