Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to compare full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of breast cancer in a screening population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy. RESULTS: Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.     

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study

Objective

To compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population.

Methods

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.

Results

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%.

Conclusion

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.     

Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with screen-film mammography (SFM) for cancer detection in a screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At two institutions, 4,945 FFDM examinations were performed in women aged 40 years and older presenting for SFM. Two views of each breast were acquired with each modality. SFM and FFDM images were interpreted independently. Findings detected with either SFM or FFDM were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy. RESULTS: Patients in the study underwent 152 biopsies, which resulted in the diagnosis of 35 breast cancers. Twenty-two cancers were detected with SFM and 21 with FFDM. Four were interval cancers that became palpable within 1 year of screening and were considered false-negative findings with both modalities. The difference in cancer detection rate was not significant. FFDM had a significantly lower recall rate (11.5%; 568 of 4,945) than SFM (13.8%; 685 of 4,945) (P <.001, McNemar chi(2) model; P <.03, generalized estimating equations model). The positive biopsy rate for findings detected with FFDM (30%; 21 of 69) was higher than that for findings detected with SFM (19%; 22 of 114), but this difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: No difference in cancer detection rate has yet been observed between FFDM and SFM. FFDM has so far led to fewer recalls than SFM.     

Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study

PURPOSE: To compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-field digital and screen-film mammography were performed in 3,683 women aged 50-69 years. Two standard views of each breast were acquired with each modality. Images underwent independent double reading with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates and positive predictive values were calculated. Cancer detection rates determined with both modalities were compared by using the McNemar test for paired proportions. Retrospective side-by-side analysis for conspicuity of cancers was performed by an external independent radiologist group with experience in both modalities. RESULTS: In 3,683 cases, 31 cancers were detected. Screen-film mammography depicted 28 (0.76%) malignancies, and full-field digital mammography depicted 23 (0.62%) malignancies. The difference between cancer detection rates was not significant (P =.23). The recall rate for full-field digital mammography (4.6%; 168 of 3,683 cases) was slightly higher than that for screen-film mammography (3.5%; 128 of 3,683 cases). The positive predictive value based on needle biopsy results was 46% for screen-film mammography and 39% for full-field digital mammography. Side-by-side image comparison for cancer conspicuity led to classification of 19 cancers as equal for probability of malignancy, six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at screen-film mammography, and six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at full-field digital mammography. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between screen-film and full-field digital mammography. Cancer conspicuity was equal with both modalities. Full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading is comparable to screen-film mammography in population-based screening.     

Computer-aided diagnosis of masses with full-field digital mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors developed and evaluated a method of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for mass detection with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new CAD method for FFDM employs adaptive, nonlinear multiscale processing and hybrid classification methods. The major strategies are (a) to "standardize" the mammographic image before it is input to the analysis modules, (b) to adapt the segmentation of suspicious regions adapt to accommodate different characteristics of masses and mammograms, and (c) to use combined "hard" and "soft" decision making in discriminating between mass and normal tissue regions. Two data sets of diagnostic FFDM mammograms were used. The training data set includes 36 normal and 24 abnormal mammograms (34 masses), and the testing data set includes 24 normal and 10 abnormal mammograms (10 masses). The tumors in this diagnostic database were more subtle and difficult to detect than those in screening databases the authors have used before. RESULTS: With the limited database and a partial optimization, a sensitivity of 91% was obtained in training, with a false-positive rate of 3.21 per image. At this trained operating point of the CAD system, six of 10 subtle masses were detected in testing. CONCLUSION: The CAD algorithms developed in screen-film mammography can be modified for FFDM. More data analysis and system optimization and evaluation will be needed before CAD can be integrated efficiently into the performance of FFDM.     

Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential for radiation dose reduction by using other beam qualities in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). FFDM was performed using an amorphous silicon detector with a caesium iodide scintillator layer (Senographe 2000D, GE, Milwaukee, USA). SFM was performed using a state-of-the-art conventional system (Senographe DMR, GE, Milwaukee, USA) with a dedicated screen-film combination. An anthropomorphic breast phantom with superimposed microcalcifications (50-200 microm) was used to evaluate the detectability of microcalcifications. Contact mammograms and magnification views (m=1.8) performed with both the digital and the screen-film system were compared. Images were exposed automatically. Molybdenum/Molybdenum (Mo/Mo) anode-filter combination, 28 kVp and 63 mAs were selected by the automatic optimization of parameters (AOP) of the conventional system. This exposure protocol (protocol A) was also used as baseline for the digital system. Dose reduction in digital mammography was achieved by using protocol B with Mo/Rh and 31 kVp and protocol C with Rh/Rh and 32 kVp. The detectability of microcalcifications was assessed by 3 experienced readers with a confidence level ranging from 1 to 5. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. In protocol A the area under the ROC-curve (A(z)) for contact views performed by the screen-film system was 0.64 and for those performed with the FFDM system 0.68. The A(z) values were 0.74 in protocol B and 0.65 in protocol C for the digital system. For the conventional and digital magnification views A(z) values were 0.71 and 0.79, respectively. For protocol B the A(z) value was 0.81 and for protocol C it was 0.76. There is no statistically significant difference in the A(z) values for the different protocols in digital mammography and no significant difference from the screen-film system. A potential for dose reduction by using other beam qualities seems to be possible with this digital system.     

Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography

Objectives  

To compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).     

Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare cancer detection rates, recall rates, and positive predictive values at screen-film mammography (SFM) with those at full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program in Norway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 43,429 women invited, 25,263 women aged 45-69 years attended the screening program and were randomized, with adjustments for age and area of residence, to undergo SFM or FFDM. Two standard views of each breast were acquired. Independent double reading was performed with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates, positive predictive values, and cancer detection rates were compared for two age groups (45-49 and 50-69 years) by using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: Overall, 73 cancers in 17,911 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.41%), compared with 41 cancers in 6,997 women at FFDM (detection rate, 0.59%; P =.06). In the group aged 50-69 years, 56 cancers in 10,304 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.54%), compared with 33 cancers in 3,985 at FFDM (detection rate, 0.83%); the difference in cancer detection rates approached significance (P =.053). In the group aged 45-49 years, 17 cancers in 7,607 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.22%), compared with eight cancers in 3,012 at FFDM (detection rate, 0.27%). Recall rates in both age groups were significantly higher at FFDM than at SFM (P <.05), but positive predictive value was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: FFDM allowed a higher cancer detection rate than did SFM in the group aged 50-69, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. The detection rate was nearly equal for the two modalities in the group aged 45-49. SFM and FFDM with soft-copy reading are comparable techniques for population-based screening mammography programs.     

Independent evaluation of computer classification of malignant and benign calcifications in full-field digital mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) technique can accurately classify breast calcifications in full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) as malignant or benign. The computer technique was developed previously on screen-film mammograms (SFMs) in which individual calcifications were identified manually. The present study evaluated the computer technique independently on a new database of FFDM images with automatic detection of the individual calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 49 consecutive FFDM cases (19 cancers) that showed suspicious calcifications. Four mammography radiologists read soft-copy mammograms retrospectively and electronically indicated the region of calcifications in each image. The computer then automatically detected the individual calcifications within the indicated region and analyzed eight features of calcification morphology and distribution to arrive at an estimated likelihood of malignancy. The radiologists entered Breast Imaging Report and Data System assessments before and after seeing the computer results. Performance was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Despite variability in radiologist-indicated regions of calcifications, the computer achieved consistently high performance taking input from the four radiologists (receiver operating characteristic curve area, A(z): 0.80, 0.80, 0.78, and 0.77; differences not statistically significant). Previous results showed that the computer technique achieved an A(z) value of 0.80 on SFMs, which improved radiologists' performance significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The computer technique appears to maintain consistently high performance in classifying calcifications in FFDMs as malignant or benign without requiring substantial modification from its initial development on SFMs. The computer performance appears to be robust with respect to variations in radiologists' input.     

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer. RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A(z)) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A(z) values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.     

Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization

PURPOSE: This study compared screen-film mammography (SFM) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) of the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients underwent surgery or biopsy, including 17 with carcinoma. Patients underwent both SFM and FFDM after providing informed consent. The abnormal findings consisted of 10 masses and 15 areas of microcalcification. The optical density of the breast tissue surrounding any lesion or mass was measured. Three readers evaluated the visibility of the masses and calcifications (contrast, margin, and type) by consensus from hard copies of the images. When evaluating FFDM, SFM was used as the standard of comparison. RESULTS: FFDM showed greater contrast of mass than SFM. The contrast of mass on FFDM was judged visually superior or equivalent to that of SFM, and microcalcifications were the same in most cases. The margin of the mass was better defined by FFDM in two cases. Determination of the type of microcalcification was similar for SFM and FFDM. CONCLUSION: FFDM provided greater contrast than SFM. FFDM might be helpful for detecting masses and observing their margins. Although FFDM may be of some use for detecting calcification, it has no advantage when determining the type of calcification.     

Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography

The goal of this prospective study was to compare a full-field digital mammography system (FFDM) to a conventional screen-film mammography system (SFM) for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Fifty-five patients with 57 isolated microcalcification clusters were examined using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.) and a SFM system (Senographe DMR, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.). A conventional screen-film mammogram and a digital contact mammogram were obtained of each cluster. The image quality and the number of calcification particles were evaluated, and a characterization (BI-RADS 1–5) of microcalcifications was given by four experienced readers. Histopathology revealed 16 benign lesions (sclerosing adenosis, dysplasia, hamartoma, radial scar) in 15 patients and 21 malignant tumors (in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma) in 20 patients. Twenty patients had benign changes verified by long-term follow-up. Image quality of FFDM was assessed as superior to SFM in more than 50% of the cases. The FFDM showed more calcifications in 41% of all cases. Sensitivity and specificity for FFDM vs SFM were 95.2 vs 91.9% and 41.4 vs 39.3%, respectively. Moreover, FFDM demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy (deviation: 0.86 BI-RADS steps) compared with FSM (deviation 0.93 BI-RADS steps). The FFDM system with a 100-μm pixel size provides better image quality than SFM in patients with mammographic microcalcifications. The FFDM has a higher sensitivity and a higher reliability in characterizing microcalcifications. Electronic Publication     

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening. Presented at ECR, Wien 2006.     

Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality,detectability and characterization of lesions

The objective of this study was to compare screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) regarding image quality as well as detectability and characterization of lesions using equivalent images of the same patient acquired with both systems. Two mammography units were used, one with a screen-film system (Senographe DMR) and the other with a digital detector (Senographe 2000D, both GEMS). Screen-film and digital mammograms were performed on 55 patients with cytologically or histologically proven tumors on the same day. Together with these, 75 digital mammograms of patients without tumor and the corresponding previous screen-film mammograms not older than 1.5 years were reviewed by three observers in a random order. Contrast, exposure, and the presence of artifacts were evaluated. Different details, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and the parenchymal structures, were judged according to a three-point ranking scale. Finally, the detectability of microcalcifications and lesions were compared and correlated to histology. Image contrast was judged to be good in 76%, satisfactory in 20%, and unsatisfactory in 4% of screen-film mammograms. Digital mammograms were judged to be good in 99% and unsatisfactory in 1% of cases. Improper exposure of screen-film system occurred in 18% (10% overexposed and 8% underexposed). Digital mammograms were improperly exposed in 4% of all cases but were of acceptable quality after post-processing. Artifacts, most of them of no significance, were found in 78% of screen-film and in none of the digital mammograms. Different anatomical regions, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and dense parenchymal areas, were better visualized in digital than in screen-film mammography. All malignant tumors were seen by the three radiologists; however, digital mammograms allowed a better characterization of these lesions to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS;) [corrected] categories (FFDM better than SFM in 23 of 165 vs 9 of 165 judged cases in SFM). In conclusion, digital mammography offers a consistent, high image quality in combination with a better contrast and without artifacts. Lesion detection in digital images was equal to that in screen-film images; however, categorization of the lesions to the BI-RADS classification was slightly better.     

Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates

OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality, the lesion detection, and the diagnostic efficacy of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates (DSPM) in the evaluation of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 150 patients with suspicious breast lesions underwent FFDM and DSPM. Nine aspects of image quality (brightness, contrast, sharpness, noise, artifacts, and the detection of anatomic structures, i.e., skin, retromamillary space, glandular tissue, and calcifications) were evaluated by five radiologists. In addition, the detection of breast lesions and the diagnostic efficacy, based on the BI-RADS classification, were evaluated with histologic and follow-up correlation. RESULTS: For contrast, sharpness, and the detection of all anatomic structures, FFDM was rated significantly better (p<0.05). Mass lesions were equally detected, whereas FFDM detected more lesions consisting of calcifications (85 versus 75). DSPM yielded two false-negative results. Both lesions were rated BI-RADS 4 with FFDM, but BI-RADS 2 with DSPM. Both were invasive carcinoma at histology. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of FFDM were 1.0, 0.397, 0.636, 1.0, and 0.707, compared to 0.974, 0.397, 0.630, 0.935, and 0.693 of DSPM. CONCLUSION: Based on image quality parameters, FFDM is, in part, significantly better than DSPM. Furthermore, the detection of breast lesions with calcifications is favorable with FFDM. However, the diagnostic efficacy of FFDM and DSPM was equal. The interpretation of the false-negative results suggests that the perception and characterization of breast lesions is not defined solely by the digital mammography system but is strongly influenced by the radiologist, who is one of the determinants in the interpretation of breast imaging.     

Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection

The objective of this study is to compare image quality and lesion detection for full field digital mammography (FFDM) and film-screen mammography (FSM). In 200 women we performed digital mammography of one breast and film-screen mammography of the other breast. Imaging parameters were set automatically. Image quality, visualization of calcifications and masses were rated by three readers independently. Mean glandular dose was calculated for both systems. We found no significant difference in mean glandular dose. Image quality was rated by reader A/B/C as excellent for FFDM in 153/155/167 cases and for FSM in 139/116/114 cases (p<0.03/0.001/0.001). Microcalcifications were detected by FFDM in 103/89/98 and by FSM in 76/76/76 cases (p<0.01/0.06/0.01). Detection of masses did not differ significantly. FFDM provided significantly better visibility of skin and nipple-areola region (p<0.01). FFDM demonstrated improved image quality compared with film-screen mammography. Microcalcification detection was also significantly better with the digital mammography system for two of the three readers.     

Clinical evaluation of wavelet-compressed digitized screen-film mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors compared diagnostic accuracy and callback rates with conventional screen-film mammograms and wavelet-compressed digitized images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty sets of mammograms (four views per case) were digitized at a spatial resolution of 100 microm. The images were wavelet compressed to a mean compression ratio of 8:1 and reviewed by three mammographers. Five regions were evaluated in each breast. Suspicion of malignancy was graded on a scale of 0% to 100%, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Callback rates were calculated by using the American College of Radiology's Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon scale. RESULTS: The mean diagnostic accuracy with compressed and conventional images was 0.832 and 0.860, respectively. The upper 95% confidence bound for the difference in ROC areas was 0.061. The mean false-positive rate at a fixed sensitivity of 0.90 was 0.041 for compressed images and 0.059 for conventional images. The mean callback rates for normal, benign, and malignant regions were 0.023, 0.305, and 0.677, respectively, for compressed images and 0.036, 0.447, and 0.750, respectively, for conventional images. The upper 95% confidence bound for the (absolute) differences in callback rates was 0.012 for normal regions, 0.163 for benign regions, and 0.138 for malignant regions. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracies were equivalent for both compressed and conventional images. The mean false-positive rate at fixed sensitivity was much better with the compressed images. However, the callback rates for malignant lesions were lower when the compressed images were used.     

Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening

PURPOSE: To investigate how the greater contrast of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) affects the detection of suspicious lesions in Japanese population-based screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screen-film mammography (SFM) and FFDM were performed in 480 women aged 50 years or more. A set of mediolateral oblique views was obtained with each modality. All mammograms were independently double-read. The five-scale category assessment and type of finding using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) nomenclature were given. Intraobserver variance, recall rates, and positive predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: The findings between the two modalities were discordant. kappa-values for each reader were 0.619 and 0.385, respectively. Almost half of the microcalcifications were called with both modalities. The detection of masses was less concordant between the readers (27%). The masses were detected more frequently with FFDM (73%). Other findings were only detected with one modality. The recall rate was not significantly different (2.9% with SFM vs. 4.2% with FFDM; p=0.253). The positive predictive value was not significantly different (14% with SFM vs. 10% with FFDM; p=0.69), either. Two patients with breast cancer were detected with both modalities. CONCLUSION: Recall rates and positive predictive value were not significantly different between SFM and FFDM. Cancers were detected with both modalities.     

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.     

Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications

The objective of this study was a comparison of a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and a conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) system with respect to the detectability of simulated small masses and microcalcifications in the magnification mode. All images were obtained using 1.8 times magnification. The FFDM images were obtained at radiation dose levels of 1.39, 1.0, 0.7, 0.49 and 0.24 times that of the SFM images. A contrast-detail phantom was used to compare the detection of simulated lesions using a four alternative forced-choice reader study with three readers. The correct observation ratio (COR) was calculated as the fraction of correctly identified lesions to the total number of simulated lesions. Soft-copy reading was performed for all digital images. Direct magnification images acquired with the digital system showed a lower object contrast threshold than those acquired with the conventional system. For equal radiation dose, the digital system provided a significantly increased COR (0.95) compared with the screen-film system (0.82). For simulated microcalcifications, the corresponding difference was 0.90 to 0.72. The digital system allowed equal detection to screen-film at 40% of the radiation dose used for screen film. Digital magnification images are superior to screen-film magnification images for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications even at a lower radiation dose.