Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.

PURPOSE To experimentally determine the relationship between radiation dose and observer accuracy in the detection and discrimination of simulated lesions for digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS This HIPAA-compliant study received institutional review board approval; the informed consent requirement was waived. Three hundred normal craniocaudal images were selected from an existing database of digital mammograms. Simulated mammographic lesions that mimicked benign and malignant masses and clusters of microcalcifications (3.3-7.4 cm in diameter) were then superimposed on images. Images were rendered without and with added radiographic noise to simulate effects of reducing the radiation dose to one half and one quarter of the clinical dose. Images were read by five experienced breast imaging radiologists. Results were analyzed to determine effects of reduced dose on overall interpretation accuracy, detection of microcalcifications and masses, discrimination between benign and malignant masses, and interpretation time. RESULTS Overall accuracy decreased from 0.83 with full dose to 0.78 and 0.62 with half and quarter doses, respectively. The decrease associated with transition from full dose to quarter dose was significant (P < .01), primarily because of an effect on detection of microcalcifications (P < .01) and discrimination of masses (P < .05). The level of dose reduction did not significantly affect detection of malignant masses (P > .5). However, reduced dose resulted in an increased mean interpretation time per image by 28% (P < .0001). CONCLUSION These findings suggest that dose reduction in digital mammography has a measurable but modest effect on diagnostic accuracy. The small magnitude of the effect in response to the drastic reduction of dose suggests potential for modest dose reductions in digital mammography.

[1]  M Ruschin,et al.  Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[2]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  J. Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. , 2000, Medical physics.

[4]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Simulation of mammographic lesions. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[5]  J. James,et al.  The current status of digital mammography. , 2004, Clinical radiology.

[6]  J. Law,et al.  Concerning the relationship between benefit and radiation risk, and cancers detected and induced, in a breast screening programme. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  G Verdú,et al.  Use of risk projection models to estimate mortality and incidence from radiation-induced breast cancer in screening programs , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[9]  J. Kneece.  Breast imaging: why MQSA (Mammography Quality Standards Act). , 1994, Administrative radiology : AR.

[10]  U. Fischer,et al.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects , 2005, European Radiology.

[11]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Sonography of Fetal Choroid Plexus Cysts , 2003, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[12]  Walter Huda,et al.  Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[13]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[14]  Thomas H. Helbich,et al.  Potential of Dose Reduction After Marker Placement With Full-Field Digital Mammography , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[15]  M L Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 7. Noise Wiener spectra of II-TV digital imaging systems. , 1986, Medical physics.

[16]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[17]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[18]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[19]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Physical characteristics of a full-field digital mammography system , 2004 .

[20]  M. S. Chesters,et al.  Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. , 1992, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  E. Pisano,et al.  Has the mammography quality standards act affected the mammography quality in North Carolina? , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  W. Huda,et al.  Radiation doses due to breast imaging in Manitoba: 1978-1988. , 1990, Radiology.

[23]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[24]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  F. Houn,et al.  Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. , 1999, Radiology.

[26]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

[27]  E Grabbe,et al.  Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[28]  Ferdinand K. Hui,et al.  Female breast radiation exposure during CT pulmonary angiography. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[30]  M. Hauptmann,et al.  Cancer incidence in the U.S. radiologic technologists health study, 1983–1998 , 2003 .

[31]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[32]  Marilyn Stovall,et al.  Breast Cancer Mortality After Diagnostic Radiography: Findings From the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study , 2000, Spine.

[33]  E Samei,et al.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. , 1999, Radiology.

[34]  K Faulkner,et al.  Two-view screening and extending the age range: the balance of benefit and risk. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[35]  M. Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. , 1984, Medical physics.

[36]  T Aach,et al.  Digital radiography enhancement by nonlinear multiscale processing. , 2000, Medical physics.

[37]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. , 2005, Medical physics.