How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital images were obtained of an ACR accreditation phantom at varying mAs (constant kVp) and varying kVp (constant mAs). The average glandular dose for a breast with 50% glandularity was determined for each technique factor. Images were displayed on a 5 mega-pixel monitor, with the window width and level settings individually optimized for viewing the fibers, specks, and masses in the ACR phantom. Digital images of the ACR phantom were presented in a random manner to eight observers, each of whom indicated the number of objects visible in each image. RESULTS: Intraobserver variability was greater than interobserver variability for the detection of fibers and specks, but the reverse was true for the detection of masses. As the mAs increased, the number of fibers visible increased from less than one at 5 mAs to all six being visible at 80 mAs. The corresponding number of visible specks increased from 12 to 24, and the number of visible masses increased from 1.25 to about four. Above 26 kVp, object visibility was constant with increasing x-ray tube voltage. Reducing the x-ray tube voltage to 24 kVp, however, reduced the number of visible fibers from six to five, the number of visible specks from 24 to 21.1, and the number of visible masses from four to 3.1. Observer performance was approximately constant for average glandular doses greater than 1.6 mGy, so that the range of lesion detectability in the ACR phantom occurs at doses lower than those normally encountered in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The current design of the ACR phantom is unsatisfactory for assessing image quality in digital mammography.     

Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

OBJECTIVE: Dry laser printers have replaced wet laser printers to produce hard copies of high-resolution digital images, primarily because of environmental concerns. However, no scientific research data have been published that compare the image quality of dry and wet laser printers in full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This study questions the image quality of these printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Objective image quality parameters of both printers were evaluated using a standardized printer test image, i.e., optical density and detectability of specific image elements (lines, curves, and shapes). Furthermore, mammograms of 129 patients with different breast tissue composition patterns were imaged with both printers. A total of 1806 subjective image quality parameters (brightness, contrast, and detail detection of anatomic structures), the detectability of breast lesions, as well as diagnostic performance according to the BI-RADS classification were evaluated. In addition, the presence of film artifacts was investigated. RESULTS: Optical density values were equal for the dry and the wet laser printer. Detection of specific image elements on the printer test image was not different. Ratings of subjective image quality parameters were equal, as were the detectability of breast lesions and the diagnostic performance. Dry laser printer images showed more artifacts (164 versus 27). However, these artifacts did not influence image quality. CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence of objective and subjective parameters, a dry laser printer equals the image quality of a wet laser printer in FFDM. Therefore, not only for reasons of environmental preference, the replacement of wet laser printers by dry laser printers in FFDM is justified.     

Can mechanical imaging increase the specificity of mammography screening?

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effects of adding adjunct mechanical imaging to mammography breast screening. We hypothesized that mechanical imaging could detect increased local pressure caused by both malignant and benign breast lesions and that a pressure threshold for malignancy could be established. The impact of this on breast screening was investigated with regard to reductions in recall and biopsy rates.

Methods

155 women recalled from breast screening were included in the study, which was approved by the regional ethical review board (dnr 2013/620). Mechanical imaging readings were acquired of the symptomatic breast. The relative mean pressure on the suspicious area (RMPA) was defined and a threshold for malignancy was established.

Results

Biopsy-proven invasive cancers had a median RMPA of 3.0 (interquartile range (IQR)?=?3.7), significantly different from biopsy-proven benign at 1.3 (IQR?=?1.0) and non-biopsied cases at 1.0 (IQR?=?1.3) (P?<?0.001). The lowest RMPA for invasive cancer was 1.4, with 23 biopsy-proven benign and 33 non-biopsied cases being below this limit. Had these women not been recalled, recall rates would have been reduced by 36% and biopsy rates by 32%.

Conclusions

If implemented in a screening situation, this may substantially lower the number of false positives.

Key Points

? Mechanical imaging is used as an adjunct to mammography in breast screening. ? A threshold pressure can be established for malignant breast cancer. ? Recalls and biopsies can be substantially reduced.

     

Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation?

The potential radiation hazards associated with routine screening mammography, in terms of breast cancer induction, are discussed in the context of the potential benefits. The very low energy X-rays used in screening mammography (26-30 kVp) are expected to be more hazardous, per unit dose, than high-energy X- or gamma-rays, such as those to which A-bomb survivors (from which radiation risk estimates are derived) were exposed. Based on in vitro studies using oncogenic transformation and chromosome aberration end-points, as well as theoretical estimates, it seems likely that low doses of low-energy X-rays produce an increased risk per unit dose (compared with high energy photons) of about a factor of 2. Because of the low doses involved in screening mammography, the benefit-risk ratio for older women would still be expected to be large, though for younger women the increase in the estimated radiation risk suggests a somewhat later age than currently recommended--by about 5-10 years--at which to commence routine breast screening.     

Can contrast enhanced mammography solve the problem of dense breast lesions?

Objective

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) vs. MX alone and vs. mammography plus ultrasound (US) in dense breasts.

Materials and methods

60 women with suspected findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated.

Results

The results from pathology identified 16 benign and 44 malignant cases. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX + CEDM than it was for MX alone using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX + CEDM than it was for MX (97.7% vs. 93.2%) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 12 histologically proven multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX + CEDM vs. 6 and 8 lesions by MX and US respectively.

Conclusion

Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography + ultrasound especially in dense breasts.     

Can the size of microcalcifications predict malignancy of clusters at mammography?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the size of mammographically detected microcalcifications is predictive of malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty mammograms showing clustered microcalcifications with proven diagnoses (160 malignant, 100 benign) were respectively reviewed by experienced mammographers. Lesions that were obviously benign in appearance were excluded from the study. A computer-aided diagnosis system digitized the lesions at 600 dpi, and the microcalcifications on the digital image were interactively defined by mammographers. Subsequently, three quantitative features that reflected the size of the microcalcifications-length, area, and brightness-were automatically extracted by the system. For each feature, the standard average of values obtained for individual calcifications within the cluster and the average with emphasis on extreme values (E) obtained in a single cluster were analyzed and matched with pathologic results. RESULTS: In the malignant group of cases, the mean values of the standard average length and area were significantly higher (P < .0001) than the mean values in the benign group. Distribution analysis demonstrated that an average length of more than 0.41 mm was associated with malignant lesions 77% of the time, while an average length of less than 0.41 mm was associated with benign lesions 71% of the time. The mean of the average length (E) and area (E) of microcalcifications within the cluster demonstrated an even higher discriminative power when compared with the standard average length and area. The average brightness, on the other hand, showed only a low discriminative power. CONCLUSION: Digital computerized analysis of mammographically detected calcifications demonstrated that the average length and area of the calcifications in benign clusters were significantly smaller than those in malignant clusters.     

Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Breast screening specificity is improved if previous mammograms are available, which presents a challenge when converting to digital mammography. Two display options were investigated: mounting previous film mammograms on a multiviewer adjacent to the workstation, or digitising them for soft copy display. Eight qualified screen readers were videotaped undertaking routine screen reading for two 45-min sessions in each scenario. Analysis of gross eye and head movements showed that when digitised, previous mammograms were examined a greater number of times per case (p = 0.03), due to a combination of being used in 19% more cases (p = 0.04) and where used, looked at a greater number of times (28% increase, p = 0.04). Digitising previous mammograms reduced both the average time taken per case by 18% (p = 0.04) and the participants’ perceptions of workload (p < 0.05). Digitising previous analogue mammograms may be advantageous, in particular in increasing their level of use.     

Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens

Objective

To compare reader ratings of the clinical diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography (CR) systems with screen–film mammography (SFM) in operative specimens.

Methods

Mammograms of 57 fresh operative breast specimens were analysed by 10 readers. Exposures were made with identical position and compression with three mammographic systems (Fuji 100CR, 50CR and SFM). Images were anonymised and readers blinded to the CR system used. A five-point comparative scoring system (−2 to +2) was used to assess seven quality criteria and overall diagnostic value. Statistical analysis was subsequently performed of reader ratings (n=16 925).

Results

For most quality criteria, both CR systems were rated as equivalent to or better than SFM. The CR systems were significantly better at demonstrating skin edge and background tissue (p<1×10⁻⁵). Microcalcification was best demonstrated on the CR50 system (p<1×10⁻⁵). The overall diagnostic value of both CR systems was rated as being as good as or better than SFM (p<1×10⁻⁵).

Conclusion

In this clinical setting, the overall diagnostic performance of both CR systems was as good as or better than SFM, with the CR50 system performing better than the CR100.There are currently three technologies widely available for diagnostic mammography: screen–film mammography (SFM) and two forms of large-field digital mammography [1]. The use of the term full-field digital mammography (FFDM) varies in the published literature and has been applied to both computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). Small-field digital mammography (SFDM) is mainly used for imaging during stereotactic biopsy [2].The advantages of digital mammography over SFM include: improved sensitivity in dense breast tissue, reduced radiation dose, the ability to manipulate images for review, and digital storage and retrieval methods [3]. CR was the earliest digital system in use. Imaging cassettes contain a re-useable photostimulable phosphor, replacing the traditional screen–film cassettes, and are then transferred to a laser reader. DR has an in-built detector and reader. Digital mammography has a lower spatial resolution than SFM, but has a very high contrast resolution. This allows the overall resolution of digital mammography to be at least equivalent to SFM [4-8], even when viewing calcification smaller than the pixel size [9]. Some CR systems have not met the quality standards of a number of governing bodies for mammography, including the European Network of Reference Assessment Centres (EUREF) and the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) [10,11]. This is related to the resolution achievable with 100 µm cassettes [12]. It is now known that CR systems using 50 µm cassettes can provide improved resolution, at an acceptable mean glandular dose, and have been approved for screening by the NHSBSP [13-15].Phantom studies indicate that the resolution and performance of DR are greater than those of CR [16,17], but have limitations. Although there are many clinical studies comparing the performance of DR and SFM [4-7,9,18-26], there are fewer that compare CR with SFM or DR [8,25,27-32]. We sought a method to compare the clinical diagnostic quality of two types of CR technology with that of SFM. We chose to study surgical specimens of breast tissue, which, although not absolutely comparable to in vivo mammography, allows realistic testing of image quality. In addition, multiple exposures can be obtained in reproducible conditions without irradiating the patient.     

Does an increase in compression force really improve visual image quality in mammography? – An initial investigation

ObjectiveLiterature speculates that visual image quality (IQ) and compression force levels may be directly related. This small study investigates whether a relationship exists between compression force levels and visual IQ.MethodTo investigate how visual IQ varies with different levels of compression force, 39 clients were selected over a 6 year screening period that had received markedly different amounts of compression force on each of their three sequential screens. Images for the 3 screening episodes for all women were scored visually using 3 different IQ scales.ResultsCorrelation coefficients between the 3 IQ scales were positive and high (0.82, 0.9 and 0.85). For the scales, the IQ scores their correlation does not vary significantly, even though different compression levels had been applied. Kappa IQ scale 1: 0.92, 0.89, 0.89. ANOVA IQ scale 2: p = 0.98, p = 0.55, p = 0.56. ICC IQ scale 3: 0.97, 0.93, 0.91.ConclusionFor the 39 clients there is no difference in visual IQ when different amounts of compression are applied. We believe that further work should be conducted into compression force and image quality as ‘higher levels’ of compression force may not be justified in the attainment of suitable visual image quality.     

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.

Methods

One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM?+?MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.

Results

Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM?+?MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM?+?MG and 0.79 for MRI.

Conclusions

This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.

Key Points

? CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics.? CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance.? CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI.? Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts.? CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.

     

Zooming method (× 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (× 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (× 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (× 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A_z value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (A_z = 0.8680 for ZOOM; A_z = 0.8682 for MAG; p = 0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p < 0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.Magnification mammography produces better spatial resolution and signal-to-noise ratio than does contact mammography. It is well established as a valuable adjunct to contact mammography, especially for the diagnosis of microcalcifications, despite the additional radiation exposure and increased radiation dose because of the shorter distance between the breast and X-ray source during examination [1–4].However, with respect to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), a few studies using zoomed images from contact mammograms have recently been reported and, as a result, a debate has arisen over whether a digital zooming system of FFDM can replace the magnification view of digital mammography [5–7]. Whereas Fischer et al [5] reported that zoomed images of a digital contact mammogram were equivalent to direct magnification of FFDM for the interpretation of microcalcifications, our previous report suggested that magnification mammography yielded better sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis than did zoomed images [7]. However, that study compared images zoomed by a factor of 1.3 with images magnified by a factor of 1.8. Therefore, we wondered whether using a zooming factor comparable to a magnification factor of 1.8 would yield the same results.The purpose of this study was to determine whether the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of microcalcification assessments using images twice zoomed from contact mammograms were equivalent to those obtained using digital magnification mammography by a magnification factor of 1.8.     

Computer-aided detection (CAD) in mammography: Does it help the junior or the senior radiologist?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system on the ability of a junior and senior radiologist to detect breast cancers on mammograms, and to determine the potential of CAD as a teaching tool in mammography. METHODS: Hundred biopsy-proven cancers and 100 normal mammograms were randomly analyzed by a CAD system. The sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the CAD system were calculated. In the second phase, to simulate daily practice, 110 mammograms (97 normal or with benign lesions, and 13 cancers) were examined independently by a junior and a senior radiologist, with and without CAD. Interpretations were standardized according to BI-RADS classification. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for each session. RESULTS: For the senior radiologist, Se slightly improved from 76.9 to 84.6% after CAD analysis (NS) (one case of clustered microcalcifications case overlooked by the senior radiologist was detected by CAD). Sp, PPV and PNV did not change significantly. For the junior radiologist, Se improved from 61.9 to 84.6% (significant change). Three cancers overlooked by the junior radiologist were detected by CAD. Sp was unchanged. CONCLUSION: CAD mammography proved more useful for the junior than for the senior radiologist, improving sensitivity. The CAD system may represent a useful educational tool for mammography.     

CAD systems for mammography: a real opportunity? A review of the literature

The introduction of systems for automated reading in mammography has been proposed to improve the sensitivity [computer-aided detection (CADe) systems] and, more recently, the specificity [computer-aided diagnosis (CADi) systems] of the test. Only CADe systems have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are used in current practice. These systems are still under discussion. Several studies have demonstrated that they are beneficial to inexperienced readers and that, through comparison with the computer, radiologists are led to improve their performance. However, there is still considerable variation among different studies in the level of benefit deriving from CAD. Therefore the role of these systems in clinical practice is still debated, and their real contribution to the overall management of the diagnostic process is not yet clear.     

Screening for cancer: when is it valid?--Lessons from the mammography experience

There is increasing interest in the development of imaging tests to screen for diseases such as cancer. Mammographic screening for breast cancer has undergone greater scrutiny than any other test. Many important lessons have been learned from the issues that have been raised with regard to mammographic screening. Those interested in developing new screening tests can learn from the mammography experience.