How many physicists does it take to test a mammography unit?

Mammography is defined as the X-ray examination of the breast. It is just one of the modalities used for breast imaging; ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are incredibly valuable adjunct techniques and newer technologies are gradually being adopted, such as molecular breast imaging and dedicated breast computed tomography. Inevitably, we tend to associate the term breast imaging with breast screening. Although breast screening has its critics [3], there can be no doubt that breast cancer is a major health burden on a global scale; it is the second most common cancer in the world and is responsible for more female deaths than any other cancer type [4]. Within Australia, 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 85 [5]. However, it is reassuring to note that mortality rates are decreasing despite the fact that incidence rates continue to rise and the diagnosis rates in young women are increasing [6]. Mammography is considered to be the gold standard for breast screening, having an overall sensitivity of about 85% and specificity of 90% [7] in women aged 50–70. Breast imaging is challenging since it is necessary to detect and classify pathological details (microcalcifications and masses) against a background of fibrous tissue, which can vary considerably in radiological appearance depending on breast thickness and composition. Microcalcifications have a relatively high atomic number and density and hence high inherent and subject contrast. Unfortunately they are generally very small in size, ranging from 10 μm through to several mm [8]. Although masses are of moderate size (5–10 mm), detection of carcinoma is difficult since malignant tissue has negligible physical density difference from fibrous breast tissue, a similar attenuation coefficient and therefore low inherent contrast I’m sorry to lure you in with a joke for which I don’t have a punchline; the answer is just one, yet there are 95 physicists in Australia and New Zealand who hold ACPSEM Certification in Mammography Equipment Testing [1]. To put this into perspective, there are only 41 medical physicists who hold ACPSEM Certification in Radiology [2]. This raises the questions of why mammography is the only radiology modality to have its own certification process and why there is so much demand for this qualification. Having spent 12 years specialising in mammography physics, I’ll attempt to answer these questions and look at how mammographic technology has changed over the years and how this has impacted the role of the medical physicist.

[1]  S. Obenauer,et al.  Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography , 2002, European Radiology.

[2]  P. C. Johns,et al.  X-ray characterisation of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[4]  M. Krohn,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size , 2013, European Radiology.

[5]  Mark F McEntee,et al.  Diagnostic reference levels for digital mammography in New South Wales , 2017, Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.

[6]  Patrice Heid,et al.  Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Breast CT , 2010 .

[8]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[9]  E. Conant,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts. , 2016, JAMA.

[10]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[11]  J. Diffey,et al.  A comparison of digital mammography detectors and emerging technology , 2015 .

[12]  Sarah Vinnicombe,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. , 2009, Radiology.

[13]  I. D. McLean,et al.  Interim recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program , 2009, Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[14]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications? , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  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. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  H Bosmans,et al.  Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  J. Heggie,et al.  Position paper: recommendations for a digital mammography quality assurance program V4.0 , 2017, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[18]  Michael Brady,et al.  Patient Specific Dose Calculation Using Volumetric Breast Density for Mammography and Tomosynthesis , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[19]  P. Dendy,et al.  Physics for Diagnostic Radiology , 1999 .

[20]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[21]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  I H R Hauge,et al.  Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme. , 2012, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[23]  Sarah A. Edwards,et al.  Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[24]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[25]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  A Survey of Patient Doses from Digital Mammography Systems in the UK in 2007 to 2009 , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[26]  Janice S Sung,et al.  Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[27]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[28]  L W Bassett,et al.  Highlights from the history of mammography. , 1990, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[29]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[30]  Daniel F Heitjan,et al.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[31]  Mike Irvine,et al.  Diagnostic reference levels for mammography in BreastScreen Queensland , 2011, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[32]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[33]  A. Stacey,et al.  The detection and significance of calcifications in the breast: a radiological and pathological study. , 1976, The British journal of radiology.