Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

This study aimed to investigate the effect of dose reduction on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography. Simulated masses and microcalcifications were positioned in an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Thirty digital images, 14 with lesions, 16 without, were acquired of the phantom using a Mammomat Novation (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) at each of three dose levels. These corresponded to 100%, 50% and 30% of the normally used average glandular dose (AGD; 1.3 mGy for a standard breast). Eight observers interpreted the 90 unprocessed images in a free response study, and the data were analysed with the jackknife free response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) method. Observer performance was assessed using the JAFROC figure of merit (FOM). The benefit of radiation risk reduction was estimated based on several risk models. There was no statistically significant difference in performance, as described by the FOM, between the 100% and the 50% dose levels. However, the FOMs for both the 100% and the 50% dose were significantly different from the corresponding quantity for the 30% dose level (F-statistic = 4.95, p-value = 0.01). A dose reduction of 50% would result in three to nine fewer breast cancer fatalities per 100,000 women undergoing annual screening from the age of 40 to 49 years. The results of the study indicate a possibility of reducing the dose to the breast to half the dose level currently used. This has to be confirmed in clinical studies, and possible differences depending on lesion type should be examined further.

[1]  R. Geise Efficacy and Radiation Safety in Interventional Radiology , 2002 .

[2]  C E Metz,et al.  Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[3]  L. Tabár,et al.  Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening , 2003, The Lancet.

[4]  David Gur,et al.  A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC. , 2005, Medical physics.

[5]  L. Björneld,et al.  Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques , 1999, European Radiology.

[6]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials , 2002, The Lancet.

[7]  K C Young,et al.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  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.

[9]  M. Ruschin,et al.  A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  A. T. Klang Diagnostic Quality and Absorbed Dose in Mammography. Influence of X-ray Spectra and Breast Anatomy , 1997 .

[11]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC). , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[12]  Angelo Taibi,et al.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey , 2004, European Radiology.

[13]  I Andersson,et al.  Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmö Mammographic Screening Program. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[14]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. , 2006, Medical physics.

[15]  Erik Holmberg,et al.  Radiation Effects on Breast Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Cohorts , 2002, Radiation research.

[16]  Bengt Hemdal,et al.  Comparison of screen-film, imaging plate and direct digital mammography with CD phantoms , 2003 .

[17]  Jack Valentin,et al.  Managing patient dose in digital radiology , 2004 .

[18]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[19]  K C Young,et al.  Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.