Screen-film Mammography Research Articles

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM). A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU). The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference. DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.

Numérique en dépistage organisé : bilan à 1 an dans les Alpes-Maritimes

After one year of experience with screening digital mammography, the results of this technique (n=9640) are compared to screen-film mammography (n=240 376) with double reading. Evaluation for each technique of the rate of call-back, positive results before and after work-up by the first reader and distribution based on the BI-RADS classification by the ACR, rate of complementary US, detected abnormalities (microcalcifications) and detected cancers. The rate of positive mammograms was significantly higher for the digital technique (17.3% versus 15.1%) because of the first reader (16.3% versus 13.9%) whereas it was significantly lower after complementary work-up (3% versus 3.7%). The rate of BI-RADS 0 was significantly higher with digital imaging irrespective of patient age. The rate of US was higher for type 1 and 2 breasts at digital imaging (46% versus 36%, p<0.0001) while the reverse was true for denser breasts (49% versus 54%; p:0.0005). More microcalcifications were detected on digital imaging (24.4% versus 21.8%) without impact on the rate of DCIS and invasive carcinomas. The rate of cancers detected with both technique were identical. The increased number of positive results at first reading and increased number of US for digital mammography may relate to a learning curve and difficulties in comparing with prior examinations. These results should continuously be monitored and compared to national averages.

Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates

Objectives:To investigate the referral pattern after the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.Methods:Preceding the nationwide digitalisation of the Dutch screening programme, an FFDM feasibility study was conducted. Detection and referral rates for FFDM and screen-film mammography (SFM) were compared for first and subsequent screens. Furthermore, radiological characteristics of referrals in digital screening were assessed.Results:A total of 312,414 screening mammograms were performed (43,913 digital and 268,501 conventional), with 4,473 consecutive referrals (966 following FFDM). Initially the FFDM referral rate peaked, and many false-positive results were noted as a consequence of pseudolesions and increased detection of (benign) microcalcifications. A higher overall referral rate was observed in FFDM screening in both first and subsequent examinations (p < .001), with a significant increase in cancer detection (p = .010).Conclusion:As a result of initial inexperience with digital screening images implementing FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening programme may lead to a strong, but temporary increase in referral. Dedicated training in digital screening for radiographers and screening radiologists is therefore recommended. Referral rates decrease and stabilise (learning curve effect) at a higher level than in conventional screening, yet with significantly enhanced cancer detection.

620 Positron emission tomography imaging in breast cancer: a pictorial essay

As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM).An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation.In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively.Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.

Cost-effectiveness of Breast MR Imaging and Screen-Film Mammography for ScreeningBRCA1Gene Mutation Carriers

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in which MR imaging and screen-film mammography were used, alone and in combination, in women with BRCA1 mutations. Because this study did not involve primary data collection from individual patients, institutional review board approval was not needed. By using a simulation model, we compared three annual screening strategies for a cohort of 25-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers, as follows: (a) screen-film mammography, (b) MR imaging, and (c) combined MR imaging and screen-film mammography (combined screening). The model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, existing databases, and calibration. Costs (2007 U.S. dollars) and quality-of-life adjustments were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates and the medical literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in parameter estimates on model results. In the base-case analysis, annual combined screening was most effective (44.62 QALYs), and had the highest cost ($110973), followed by annual MR imaging alone (44.50 QALYs, $108641), and annual mammography alone (44.46 QALYs, $100336). Adding annual MR imaging to annual mammographic screening cost $69125 for each additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, when the screening MR imaging cost increased to $960 (base case, $577), or breast cancer risk by age 70 years decreased below 58% (base case, 65%), or the sensitivity of combined screening decreased below 76% (base case, 94%), the cost of adding MR imaging to mammography exceeded $100000 per QALY. Annual combined screening provides the greatest life expectancy and is likely cost-effective when the value placed on gaining an additional QALY is in the range of $50000-$100000. http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09091086/-/DC1.

621 Does full-field digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to comparable screening performance parameters as film-screen mammography?

621 Does full-field digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to comparable screening performance parameters as film-screen mammography?

Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the actual mammography dose levels in Serbia and establish a baseline dose database for the future screening programme. The mean glandular dose (MGD) was assessed for standard size breast substituted by 45 mm polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom and imaged under typical clinical conditions at 30 screen-film mammography facilities. Average MGD was (1.9 +/- 1.0) mGy, with a range of 0.12-5.2 mGy. These results were used for the calculation of the initial diagnostic reference levels in mammography in Serbia, which was set to 2.1 mGy for a standard breast. At some facilities, high doses were observed and the assessed MGD was supplemented by a patient dose survey. MGD was measured for 53 women having a diagnostic mammography in cranio-caudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections at the largest mammography facilities in Serbia. The parameters recorded were: age, compressed breast thickness, tube potential (in kV), tube loading (in mAs) and the MLO projection angle. The average MGD per image was 2.8 mGy for the CC projection and 4.3 mGy for the MLO projection. Dose to breast was compared with dose for PMMA phantoms of various sizes, assessed at the same facilities. The results have indicated that phantom dose values can assist in setting optimisation activities in mammography. Both phantom and patient dose values indicated unnecessary high doses in facilities with an extremely high mammography workload. For these facilities, urgent dose-reduction measures and follow-up actions were recommended.

Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan

Digital systems have replaced screen-film systems, and have already been used for a screening program. The diagnostic performance of digital systems has been compared with that of screen-film systems, as the golden standard of breast cancer screening. Several studies have demonstrated they are superior to screen-film mammography; others have shown performance is comparable. The validity of digital screening mammography has been demonstrated. Regarding the method of interpretation of digital screening mammograms, the performance of hard-copy and soft-copy reading has been reported to be comparable, although the environment of soft-copy reading was premature. Soft-copy reading seems more promising in the future as a result of the development of both hardware and software. However, many aspects of quality assurance of soft-copy reading (e.g. standard specifications of viewing workstation, contrast visibility and resolution, ambient light) which remain undetermined should be clarified in the Japanese guideline. In Japan the average glandular dose in screening digital mammography is higher than that in screen-film mammography. Most (93.2%) are under 2 mGy for each radiation exposure. The risk of breast cancer by radiation exposure is regarded as higher than before in the 2007 recommendations of the ICRP. Management of radiation exposure is a continuing challenge.

Mammographic density and markers of socioeconomic status: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundSocioeconomic status (SES) is known to be positively associated with breast cancer risk but its relationship with mammographic density, a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer, is unclear. This study aims to investigate whether mammographic density varies by SES and to identify the underlying anthropometric, lifestyle and reproductive factors leading to such variation.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study of mammographic density in 487 pre-menopausal women, SES was assessed from questionnaire data using highest achieved level of formal education, quintiles of Census-derived Townsend scores and urban/rural classification of place of residence. Mammographic density was measured on digitised films using a computer-assisted method. Linear regression models were fitted to assess the association between SES variables and mammographic density, adjusting for correlated variables.ResultsIn unadjusted models, percent density was positively associated with SES, with an absolute difference in percent density of 6.3% (95% CI 1.6%, 10.5%) between highest and lowest educational categories, and of 6.6% (95% CI -0.7%, 12.9%) between highest and lowest Townsend quintiles. These associations were mainly driven by strong negative associations between these SES variables and lucent area and were attenuated upon adjustment for body mass index (BMI). There was little evidence that reproductive factors explained this association. SES was not associated with the amount of dense tissue in the breast before or after BMI adjustment. The effect of education on percent density persisted after adjustment for Townsend score. Mammographic measures did not vary according to urban/rural place of residence.ConclusionsThe observed SES gradients in percent density paralleled known SES gradients in breast cancer risk. Although consistent with the hypothesis that percent density may be a mediator of the SES differentials in breast cancer risk, the SES gradients in percent density were mainly driven by the negative association between SES and BMI. Nevertheless, as density affects the sensitivity of screen-film mammography, the higher percent density found among high SES women would imply that these women have a higher risk of developing cancer but a lower likelihood of having it detected earlier.

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

The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography. 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. 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. 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.

Screen-Film Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: A Comparison of the Volumetric Standard Mammogram Form and the Interactive Threshold Measurement Methods

Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, usually measured by an area-based threshold method that dichotomizes the breast area on a mammogram into dense and nondense regions. Volumetric methods of breast density measurement, such as the fully automated standard mammogram form (SMF) method that estimates the volume of dense and total breast tissue, may provide a more accurate density measurement and improve risk prediction. In 2000-2003, a case-control study was conducted of 367 newly confirmed breast cancer cases and 661 age-matched breast cancer-free controls who underwent screen-film mammography at several centers in Toronto, Canada. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios of breast cancer associated with categories of mammographic density, measured with both the threshold and the SMF (version 2.2beta) methods, adjusting for breast cancer risk factors. Median percent density was higher in cases than in controls for the threshold method (31% versus 27%) but not for the SMF method. Higher correlations were observed between SMF and threshold measurements for breast volume/area (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.95) than for percent density (0.68) or for absolute density (0.36). After adjustment for breast cancer risk factors, odds ratios of breast cancer in the highest compared with the lowest quintile of percent density were 2.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.72; P(t) <0.01) for the threshold method and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-2.04; Pt = 0.32) for the SMF method. Threshold percent density is a stronger predictor of breast cancer risk than the SMF version 2.2beta method in digitized images.

Diagnostic digital mammography in Japan: issues to consider

Digital mammography has been proposed as an alternative to screen-film mammography. Digital mammography has many technical advantages over film mammography, including image-enhancement capability, faster image acquisition, and better storage and transmission for archiving. However, its full potential can only be achieved through soft-copy reading. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography is still a relatively new technique, and has several issues which must still be resolved. It is necessary to optimize display formats and software as soon as possible to standardize soft-copy reading in digital mammography.

Digital mammography in Japan

Digital mammography has been proposed as an alternative to screen-film mammography. Previous publications have reported the equivalent performance of digital and film mammography [1, 2], and digital mammography has some advantages over film mammography [3, 4],including many technical advantages, including image-enhancement capability, faster image acquisition, and better storage and transmission for archiving. Its full potential can only be achieved through soft-copy reading. More than 70% of the facilities in Japan have digital mammography systems. However, most of the digital mammography systems use computed radiographic mammography and only about 10% of the facilities have fullfield digital mammography systems. In addition, there are few facilities with soft-copy reading of digital mammography in Japan. This situation is remarkable, because most of the digital mammography systems worldwide are fullfield digital mammography systems with soft-copy reading. Because the soft-copy reading of digital mammography involves very complex processes, some issues have been raised. For the special articles in this issue, a group of recognized and experienced experts, based on the Mammography Subcommittee of the Japan Radiological Society, were assembled. These experts have put together a monograph on digital mammography. The special articles provide a comprehensive review and update on digital mammography, especially in Japan. They will serve as an excellent reference source for anyone interested in digital mammography.

Digital mammographic screening in Japan

We describe the current status of mammographic screening and investigate how digital mammography is used in screening in Japan. Despite the widespread use of digital mammographic equipment, the mammographic screening rate for invited women is very low. In the majority of cases, digital hard copy images are read for screening. Soft-copy reading of digital mammography is not widely used, because of the difficulty of handling large amounts of CR data, the cost of workstations with 5 M LCD monitors, and the loading of full-field digital mammography on the mobile unit. Digital mammography has a number of advantages and has increasingly replaced conventional film-screen mammography, becoming the gold standard in combination with soft-copy reading in screening settings.

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

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

Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program

Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study

To compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population. The study enrolled 200 consenting women who had at least one breast lesion discovered by mammography and/or ultrasound classified as doubtful or suspicious or probably malignant. They underwent tomosynthesis in one view [mediolateral oblique (MLO)] of both breasts at a dose comparable to that of standard screen-film mammography in two views [craniocaudal (CC) and MLO]. Images were rated by six breast radiologists using the BIRADS score. Ratings were compared with the truth established according to the standard of care and a multiple-reader multiple-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Clinical performance of DBT compared with that of FFDM was evaluated in terms of the difference between areas under ROC curves (AUCs) for BIRADS scores. Overall clinical performance with DBT and FFDM for malignant versus all other cases was not significantly different (AUCs 0.851 vs 0.836, p = 0.645). The lower limit of the 95% CI or the difference between DBT and FFDM AUCs was -4.9%. Clinical performance of tomosynthesis in one view at the same total dose as standard screen-film mammography is not inferior to digital mammography in two views.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: What It Means for Radiology

The coming years will be an ideal time for investigators in radiology to develop a comparative effectiveness research (CER) initiative and to establish a lasting precedent for CER in our field.

Tomosynthèse : luxe ou nécessité

Digital mammography is replacing conventional film-screen mammography. One of its advantages is to offer options of advanced processing such as tomosynthesis. Tomosynthesis allows to avoid the overlap of tissues depitected on mammograms, and potentially to improve the detection of subtle lesion such as architectural distortion, permits the characterization of masses and of density asymmetry and the accurate measurement of beast lesion by a better delineation of the lesion borders. Furthermore, in cases of superimposition mimicking an abnormality, it can show the lack of a significant finding and decrease the recall rate. However, additional studies are necessary to evaluate its added valve by comparison to mammography in consecutive patients and not only in retrospectively selectioned cases and to define its indication in diagnostic and screening.

Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program

Clinical trials to date into the use of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast cancer screening have shown variable results. The aim of this study was to review the use of FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening program and to compare the results with screen-film mammography. The study included 188,823 screening examinations of women between 50 and 64 years old; 35,204 (18.6%) mammograms were obtained using FFDM. All films were double read using a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Patients with positive scores were recalled for further workup. The recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of FFDM were compared with screen-film mammography. The cancer detection rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (6.3 vs 5.2 per 1,000, respectively; p = 0.01). The cancer detection rate for FFDM was higher than screen-film mammography for initial screening and subsequent screening, for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, and across all age groups. The cancer detection rate for cancers presenting as microcalcifications was significantly higher for FFDM than for screen-film mammography (1.9 vs 1.3 per 1,000, p = 0.01). The recall rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (4.0% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the PPVs of recall to assessment for FFDM and screen-film mammography (15.7% and 16.7%, p = 0.383). FFDM resulted in significantly higher cancer detection and recall rates than screen-film mammography in women 50-64 years old. The PPVs of FFDM and screen-film mammography were comparable. The results of this study suggest that FFDM can be safely implemented in breast cancer screening programs.