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.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial enrolled 49,528 women to compare FFDM and screen-film mammography for screening. For quality assurance purposes, technical parameters including breast compression force, compressed breast thickness, mean glandular dose, and the number of additional views needed for complete breast coverage were recorded and analyzed for both FFDM and screen-film mammography on approximately 10% of study subjects at each site. RESULTS Technical data were compiled on 5,102 study subjects at 33 sites. Clean data were obtained for 4,366 (88%) of those cases. Mean compression force was 10.7 dN for screen-film mammography and 10.1 dN for FFDM (5.5% difference, p < 0.001). Mean compressed breast thickness was 5.3 cm for screen-film mammography and 5.4 cm for FFDM (1.7% difference, p < 0.001). Mean glandular dose per view averaged 2.37 mGy for screen-film mammography and 1.86 mGy for FFDM, 22% lower for digital than screen-film mammography, with sizeable variations among digital manufacturers. Twelve percent of screen-film mammography cases required more than the normal four views, whereas 21% of FFDM cases required more than the four normal views to cover all breast tissue. When extra views were included, mean glandular dose per subject was 4.15 mGy for FFDM and 4.98 mGy for screen-film mammography, 17% lower for FFDM than screen-film mammography. CONCLUSION Our results show that differences between screen-film mammography and FFDM in compression force and indicated compressed breast thickness were small. On average, FFDM had 22% lower mean glandular dose than screen-film mammography per acquired view, with sizeable variations in average FFDM doses by manufacturer.

[1]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  F. Shtern.  Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. , 1992, Radiology.

[4]  Richard J Vetter,et al.  Comparison of radiation exposure and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from mammography and molecular imaging of the breasta). , 2010, Medical physics.

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

[6]  C. Riedl,et al.  Neues zum Hochrisikomammascreening , 2010, Der Radiologe.

[7]  Muriel Rabilloud,et al.  DNA double-strand breaks induced by mammographic screening procedures in human mammary epithelial cells , 2011, International journal of radiation biology.

[8]  Donglin Zeng,et al.  Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[9]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. , 1991, Medical physics.

[11]  Joann G. Elmore,et al.  Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer , 2003 .

[12]  R. Geise,et al.  Composition of mammographic phantom materials. , 1996, Radiology.

[13]  A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[14]  T. Villafana,et al.  Dosage evaluation in mammography. , 1984, Radiology.

[15]  Constantine A Gatsonis,et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. , 2005, Radiology.

[16]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. , 2011, Radiology.

[17]  W. Sobol,et al.  Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables. , 1997, Medical physics.

[18]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  A Fenster,et al.  Scanned-projection digital mammography. , 1987, Medical physics.

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  P Baldelli,et al.  Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland. , 2011, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[23]  P Baldelli,et al.  Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme. , 2011, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  L. Margolies.  Mammographic screening for breast cancer: 2010. , 2010, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York.

[25]  G. Barnes,et al.  Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography. , 1994, Radiology.

[26]  L. Philpotts.  Comprehensive breast imaging 2010. , 2011, Seminars in roentgenology.

[27]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. , 2010, Radiology.

[28]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[29]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: detectors with high voltage protection. , 1998, Medical physics.

[30]  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.

[31]  U. Bick,et al.  Development of low-dose photon-counting contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis with spectral imaging. , 2011, Radiology.

[32]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers , 2012, Cancer.