Dataset Information

Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

ABSTRACT: Two dosimetric quantities [mean glandular dose (MGD) and entrance surface air kerma (ESAK)] and the diagnostic performance of phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation (MSR) are compared to conventional digital mammography (DM). Seventy-one patients (age range, 41 to 82 years) underwent MSR after a DM examination if questionable or suspicious breast abnormalities were not clarified by ultrasonography. The MGD and the ESAK delivered in both examinations were evaluated and compared. Two on-site radiologists rated the images in consensus according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment categories, which were then correlated with the final diagnoses by means of statistical generalized linear models (GLMs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were also used to assess the diagnostic performance by comparing the area under the curve (AUC). An important MGD and ESAK reduction was observed in MSR due to the monoenergetic beam. In particular, an average 43% reduction was observed for the MGD and a reduction of more than 50% for the ESAK. GLM showed higher diagnostic accuracy, especially in terms of specificity, for MSR, confirmed by AUC analysis ([Formula: see text]). The study design implied that the population was characterized by a high prevalence of disease and that the radiologists, who read the DM images before referring the patient to MSR, could have been influenced in their assessments. Within these limitations, the use of synchrotron radiation with the phase-contrast technique applied to mammography showed an important dose reduction and a higher diagnostic accuracy compared with DM. These results could further encourage research on the translation of x-ray phase-contrast imaging into the clinics.

SUBMITTER: Fedon C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5793956 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

Fedon Christian C Rigon Luigi L Arfelli Fulvia F Dreossi Diego D Quai Elisa E Tonutti Maura M Tromba Giuliana G Cova Maria Assunta MA Longo Renata R

Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) 20180101 1

Two dosimetric quantities [mean glandular dose (MGD) and entrance surface air kerma (ESAK)] and the diagnostic performance of phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation (MSR) are compared to conventional digital mammography (DM). Seventy-one patients (age range, 41 to 82 years) underwent MSR after a DM examination if questionable or suspicious breast abnormalities were not clarified by ultrasonography. The MGD and the ESAK delivered in both examinations were evaluated and compared. Tw ...[more]

PMID: 29430473

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose To establish contemporary performance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for active or passive consenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to enroll participants, link data, and perform analyses. Data were obtained from six BCSC registries (418 radiologists, 92 radiology facilities). Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively collected for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses from state cancer registries. The study included 401 548 examinations conducted from 2007 to 2013 in 265 360 women. Results Overall diagnostic performance measures were as follows: cancer detection rate, 34.7 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.1, 35.2); abnormal interpretation rate, 12.6% (95% CI: 12.5%, 12.7%); positive predictive value (PPV) of a biopsy recommendation (PPV2), 27.5% (95% CI: 27.1%, 27.9%); PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3), 30.4% (95% CI: 29.9%, 30.9%); false-negative rate, 4.8 per 1000 (95% CI: 4.6, 5.0); sensitivity, 87.8% (95% CI: 87.3%, 88.4%); and specificity, 90.5% (95% CI: 90.4%, 90.6%). Among cancers detected, 63.4% were stage 0 or 1 cancers, 45.6% were minimal cancers, the mean size of invasive cancers was 21.2 mm, and 69.6% of invasive cancers were node negative. Performance metrics varied widely across diagnostic indications, with cancer detection rate (64.5 per 1000) and abnormal interpretation rate (18.7%) highest for diagnostic mammograms obtained to evaluate a breast problem with a lump. Compared with performance during the screen-film mammography era, diagnostic digital performance showed increased abnormal interpretation and cancer detection rates and decreasing PPVs, with less than 70% of radiologists within acceptable ranges for PPV2 and PPV3. Conclusion These performance measures can serve as national benchmarks that may help transform the marked variation in radiologists' diagnostic performance into targeted quality improvement efforts. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Project description:Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI.PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast.Study typeProspective, single center.PopulationWomen with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included.Field strength/sequence1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype.AssessmentThree, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard.Statistical testLesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.ResultsIncluded were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514).Data conclusionL-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.

Project description:To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies.In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds.Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup.Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Project description:PurposeTo compare radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography versus digital mammography alone.Materials and methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained at each accruing institution. Participating women gave written informed consent. Mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal digital mammographic and tomosynthesis images of both breasts were obtained from 1192 subjects. Two enriched reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone. Study 1 comprised 312 cases (48 cancer cases) with images read by 12 radiologists; study 2, 312 cases (51 cancer cases) with 15 radiologists. Study 1 readers recorded only that an abnormality requiring recall was present; study 2 readers had additional training and recorded both lesion type and location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Recall rates of noncancer cases, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values determined by analyzing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scores were compared for the two methods.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone. Average difference in area under the curve in study 1 was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7%, 10.8%; P < .001) and in study 2 was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%, 9.5%; P < .001). All 27 radiologists increased diagnostic accuracy with addition of tomosynthesis. Recall rates for noncancer cases for all readers significantly decreased with addition of tomosynthesis (range, 6%-67%; P < .001 for 25 readers, P < .03 for all readers). Increased sensitivity was largest for invasive cancers: 15% and 22% in studies 1 and 2 versus 3% for in situ cancers in both studies.ConclusionAddition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significantly increased diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduced recall rates for noncancer cases.Supplemental materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120674/-/DC1.

Project description:In this study we compared the image quality of a synchrotron radiation (SR) breast computed tomography (BCT) system with a clinical BCT in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), noise power spectrum (NPS), spatial resolution and detail visibility. A breast phantom consisting of several slabs of breast-adipose equivalent material with different embedded targets (i.e., masses, fibers and calcifications) was used. Phantom images were acquired using a dedicated BCT system installed at the Radboud University Medical Center (Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and the SR BCT system at the SYRMEP beamline of Elettra SR facility (Trieste, Italy) based on a photon-counting detector. Images with the SR setup were acquired mimicking the clinical BCT conditions (i.e., energy of 30?keV and radiation dose of 6.5 mGy). Images were reconstructed with an isotropic cubic voxel of 273?µm for the clinical BCT, while for the SR setup two phase-retrieval (PhR) kernels (referred to as "smooth" and "sharp") were alternatively applied to each projection before tomographic reconstruction, with voxel size of 57?×?57?×?50 µm3. The CNR for the clinical BCT system can be up to 2-times higher than SR system, while the SNR can be 3-times lower than SR system, when the smooth PhR is used. The peak frequency of the NPS for the SR BCT is 2 to 4-times higher (0.9?mm-1 and 1.4?mm-1 with smooth and sharp PhR, respectively) than the clinical BCT (0.4?mm-1). The spatial resolution (MTF10%) was estimated to be 1.3 lp/mm for the clinical BCT, and 5.0 lp/mm and 6.7 lp/mm for the SR BCT with the smooth and sharp PhR, respectively. The smallest fiber visible in the SR BCT has a diameter of 0.15?mm, while for the clinical BCT is 0.41?mm. Calcification clusters with diameter of 0.13?mm are visible in the SR BCT, while the smallest diameter for the clinical BCT is 0.29?mm. As expected, the image quality of the SR BCT outperforms the clinical BCT system, providing images with higher spatial resolution and SNR, and with finer granularity. Nevertheless, this study assesses the image quality gap quantitatively, giving indications on the benefits associated with SR BCT and providing a benchmarking basis for its clinical implementation. In addition, SR-based studies can provide a gold-standard in terms of achievable image quality, constituting an upper-limit to the potential clinical development of a given technique.

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

Dataset Information

Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

Publications

Dose and diagnostic performance comparison between phase-contrast mammography with synchrotron radiation and digital mammography: a clinical study report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets