Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography

AbstractObjectivesTo compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems.MethodsThe number of women screened with CR was 73,008 and with DR 116,945. Technical and patient dose survey data of 25 CR and 37 DR systems were available. Technical performance was expressed by threshold thickness values at the mean glandular dose (MGD) level of routine practice. Clinical indicators included recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), percentage of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm and positive predictive value (PPV).ResultsContrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 μm (SD 0.13 μm) for CR and 1.20 μm (SD 0.13 μm for DR). MGD was 2.16 mGy (SD 0.36 mGy) and 1.35 mGy (SD 0.32 mGy) for CR and DR respectively. We obtained for CR, respectively DR, the following results: RR in the first round of 5.48 % versus 5.61 %; RR in subsequent rounds of 2.52 % versus 2.65 %; CDR of 0.52 % versus 0.53 %; DCIS of 0.08 % versus 0.11 %; a rate of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm of 0.11 % versus 0.11 %; PPV of 18.45 % versus 18.64 %; none of them was significantly different.ConclusionOur screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD.Key Points• Breast cancer screening can employ both computed (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). • Screening performance parameters for CR and DR technology are not significantly different. • Screening parameters are in accordance with European Guidelines. • Radiation doses employed for CR are generally 60 % greater than for DR.

[1]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates , 2010, European Radiology.

[2]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. , 2012, Medical physics.

[3]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[4]  Niall Phelan,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  P. Skaane,et al.  Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. , 2005, Radiology.

[6]  P. Skaane,et al.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. , 2007, Radiology.

[7]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  Renato Campanini,et al.  Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[9]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[10]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Mercè Comas,et al.  Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. , 2009, Radiology.

[13]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[14]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. , 2012, Radiology.

[15]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Digital Mammography , 2019, Advances in Clinical Radiology.

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

[17]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? , 2010, European Radiology.

[19]  Margarita Chevalier,et al.  Patient dose in digital mammography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[20]  A. Elster,et al.  Risk of Radiation-induced Breast Cancer from Mammographic Screening , 2012 .

[21]  P. Skaane.  Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[22]  R. Blanks,et al.  Evaluation of extension of breast screening to women aged 65–70 in England using screening performance measures , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[23]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program , 2010 .

[24]  M. Pamilo,et al.  Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[25]  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.