Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing interest in non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting and evaluating breast lesions. We present a methodology utilizing lesion core and periphery region of interest (ROI) features derived from directional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data to evaluate performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions in dense breasts. METHODS: We accrued 55 dense-breast cases with 69 lesions (31 benign; 38 cancer) at a single institution in a prospective study; cases with ROIs exceeding 7.50 cm2 were excluded, resulting in analysis of 50 cases with 63 lesions (29 benign, 34 cancers). Spin-echo echo-planar imaging DWI was acquired at 1.5 T and 3 T. Data from three diffusion encoding gradient directions were exported and processed independently. Lesion ROIs were hand-drawn on DWI images by two radiologists. A region growing algorithm generated 3D lesion models on augmented apparent-diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and defined lesion core and lesion periphery sub-ROIs. A lesion-core and a lesion-periphery feature were defined and combined into an overall classifier whose performance was compared to that of mean ADC using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Inter-observer variability in ROI definition was measured using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). RESULTS: The region-growing algorithm for 3D lesion model generation improved inter-observer variability over hand drawn ROIs (DSC: 0.66 vs 0.56 (p < 0.001) with substantial agreement (DSC > 0.8) in 46% vs 13% of cases, respectively (p < 0.001)). The overall classifier improved discrimination over mean ADC, (ROC- area under the curve (AUC): 0.85 vs 0.75 and 0.83 vs 0.74 respectively for the two readers). CONCLUSIONS: A classifier generated from directional DWI information using lesion core and lesion periphery information separately can improve lesion discrimination in dense breasts over mean ADC and should be considered for inclusion in computer-aided diagnosis algorithms. Our model-based ROIs could facilitate standardization of breast MRI computer-aided diagnostics (CADx).

Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the performance of radiologists with digital mammograms acquired during the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Only those DMIST cases with proven cancer status by biopsy or 1-year follow-up that had available digital images were included in this multireader, multicase ROC study. Two commercially available CAD systems for digital mammography were used: iCAD SecondLook, version 1.4; and R2 ImageChecker Cenova, version 1.0. Fourteen radiologists interpreted, without and with CAD, a set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the iCAD SecondLook system, and 15 radiologists interpreted a different set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the R2 ImageChecker Cenova system. RESULTS: The average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.77) with the iCAD system (p = 0.07). Similarly, the average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.77) with the R2 system (p = 0.08). Sensitivity and specificity differences without and with CAD for both systems also were not significant. CONCLUSION: Radiologists in our studies rarely changed their diagnostic decisions after the addition of CAD. The application of CAD had no statistically significant effect on radiologist AUC, sensitivity, or specificity performance with digital mammograms from DMIST.

Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivities and false-detection rates of two computer-aided detection (CADe) systems when applied to digital or film-screen mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) breast cancer screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Available film-screen and digital mammograms of 161 breast cancer cases from DMIST were analyzed by two CADe systems, iCAD Second-Look and R2 ImageChecker. Three experienced breast-imaging radiologists reviewed the CADe marks generated for each available cancer case, recording the number and locations of CADe marks and whether each CADe mark location corresponded with the known location of the cancer. RESULTS: For the 161 cancer cases included in this study, the sensitivities of the DMIST reader without CAD were 0.43 (69/161, 95% CI 0.35-0.51) for digital and 0.41 (66/161, 0.33-0.49) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivities of iCAD were 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital and 0.69 (111/161, 0.61-0.76) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of iCAD was 2.57 (SD, 1.92) for digital and 3.06(1.72) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivity of R2 was 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital, and 0.60 (97/161, 0.52-0.68) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of R2 was 2.07 (1.57) for digital and 1.52 (1.45) for film-screen mammography. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the use of CADe in interpretation of digital and film-screen mammograms could lead to improvements in cancer detection.

Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' performance in detecting breast cancer when reading full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images either displayed on monitors or printed on film. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received investigational review board approval and was HIPAA compliant, with waiver of informed consent. A reader study was conducted in which 26 radiologists read screening FFDM images displayed on high-resolution monitors (soft-copy digital) and printed on film (hard-copy digital). Three hundred thirty-three cases were selected from the Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial screening study (n = 49,528). Of these, 117 were from patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 15 months of undergoing screening mammography. The digital mammograms were displayed on mammographic workstations and printed on film according to the manufacturer's specifications. Readers read both hard-copy and soft-copy images 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist read a subset of the total images. Twenty-two readers were assigned to evaluate images from one of three FFDM systems, and four readers were assigned to evaluate images from two mammographic systems. Each radiologist assigned a malignancy score on the basis of overall impression by using a seven-point scale, where 1 = definitely not malignant and 7 = definitely malignant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for the primary comparison. The AUCs for soft-copy and hard-copy were 0.75 and 0.76, respectively (95% confidence interval: -0.04, 0.01; P = .36). Secondary analyses showed no significant differences in AUCs on the basis of manufacturer type, lesion type, or breast density. CONCLUSION: Soft-copy reading does not provide an advantage in the interpretation of digital mammograms. However, the display formats were not optimized and display software remains an evolving process, particularly for soft-copy reading.

Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

PURPOSE: To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This project was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seven radiologist readers reviewed the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factors that contributed to lesion visibility on both types of images. Two multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the combined and condensed visibility ratings assigned by the readers to the paired digital and screen-film images. RESULTS: Readers most frequently attributed differences in DMIST cancer visibility to variations in image contrast--not differences in positioning or compression--between digital and screen-film mammography. The odds of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with dense breasts than for women with nondense breasts, even with the data adjusted for patient age, lesion type, and mammography system (odds ratio, 2.28; P < .0001). The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible at digital and screen-film mammography--were significantly greater for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with the Fischer (P = .0070) and Fuji (P = .0070) devices. CONCLUSION: The significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammography, in women with dense breasts demonstrated in the DMIST was most likely attributable to differences in image contrast, which were most likely due to the inherent system performance improvements that are available with digital mammography. The authors conclude that the DMIST results were attributable primarily to differences in the display and acquisition characteristics of the mammography devices rather than to reader variability.

Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To perform a pilot evaluation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for screening to determine whether it can improve accuracy and reader confidence in diagnosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This institutional review board-approved reader study was comprised of 64 de-identified CEM cases acquired from December 1, 2014, to June 7, 2016, including 48 negative, 5 biopsy-proven benign, and 11 biopsy-proven malignancies. Negative cases were followed for at least 2 years without evidence of cancer. Ten breast imagers of varying experience first rated the low-energy (LE) mammogram and then the CEM examination using BI-RADS categories and a 5-point Likert scale for confidence in diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 635 out a total possible 640 complete reader interpretations included in this analysis. The remaining five incomplete interpretations were excluded. Median sensitivity and specificity improved with the addition of CEM (sensitivity: 0.86 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.74-0.95] versus 1 [95% CI: 0.83-1.00], specificity: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.64-0.94] versus 0.88 [95% CI: 0.80-0.92]). Individual receiver operating characteristic curves showed significant improvement with CEM (mean area under the curve increase = 0.056 [95% CI: 0.015-0.097], P = .002). The addition of CEM significantly improved average confidence in 5 of 10 readers when compared with LE (P < .0001) and improved pooled confidence across all tissue density categories, except the almost entirely fatty category. There was a trend toward improved confidence with increasing tissue density with CEM. Degree of background parenchymal enhancement did not affect readers' level of improvement in confidence when interpreting CEM. SUMMARY: CEM improved reader performance and confidence compared with viewing only LE, suggesting a role for CEM in breast cancer screening for which larger trials are warranted.

Impact of prevalence and case distribution in lab-based diagnostic imaging studies.

We investigated effects of prevalence and case distribution on radiologist diagnostic performance as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity-specificity in lab-based reader studies evaluating imaging devices. Our retrospective reader studies compared full-field digital mammography (FFDM) to screen-film mammography (SFM) for women with dense breasts. Mammograms were acquired from the prospective Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. We performed five reader studies that differed in terms of cancer prevalence and the distribution of noncancers. Twenty radiologists participated in each reader study. Using split-plot study designs, we collected recall decisions and multilevel scores from the radiologists for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Differences in reader-averaged AUCs slightly favored SFM over FFDM (biggest AUC difference: 0.047, SE = 0.023 , p = 0.047 ), where standard error accounts for reader and case variability. The differences were not significant at a level of 0.01 (0.05/5 reader studies). The differences in sensitivities and specificities were also indeterminate. Prevalence had little effect on AUC (largest difference: 0.02), whereas sensitivity increased and specificity decreased as prevalence increased. We found that AUC is robust to changes in prevalence, while radiologists were more aggressive with recall decisions as prevalence increased.

Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19-92 years). Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided 80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively. RESULTS: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment.

Factors affecting decreasing radiation dose for mammography in North Carolina after 2002: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual surveys.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine which factors affected the decrease in average glandular dose recorded at the annual U.S. Food and Drug Administration Mammography Quality Standards Act inspections of mammography equipment in North Carolina from 2002 through 2005. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Average glandular dose, half-value layer, kVp, equipment age, processing speed, and system speed for every mammography unit in the state were collected by Food and Drug Administration-trained state inspectors. A mixed-effect model was used to evaluate the changes of glandular dose over time and to identify the factors associated with these changes. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease in average glandular dose in North Carolina since 2002. Factors that were statistically significantly associated with this effect were changes in kVp, equipment age, processing speed, and system speed. CONCLUSION: Average glandular dose for mammography has decreased in North Carolina after 2002. This change is probably at least partially due to the cumulative effect of direct intervention by mammography consultants and statewide educational seminars on mammography quality control.

Impact of Different Study Populations on Reader Behavior and Performance Metrics: Initial Results.

The FDA recently completed a study on design methodologies surrounding the Validation of Imaging Premarket Evaluation and Regulation called VIPER. VIPER consisted of five large reader sub-studies to compare the impact of different study populations on reader behavior as seen by sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, the area under the ROC curve (receiver operating characteristic curve). The study investigated different prevalence levels and two kinds of sampling of non-cancer patients: a screening population and a challenge population. The VIPER study compared full-field digital mammography (FFDM) to screen-film mammography (SFM) for women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. All cases and corresponding images were sampled from Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) archives. There were 20 readers (American Board Certified radiologists) for each sub-study, and instead of every reader reading every case (fully-crossed study), readers and cases were split into groups to reduce reader workload and the total number of observations (split-plot study). For data collection, readers first decided whether or not they would recall a patient. Following that decision, they provided an ROC score for how close or far that patient was from the recall decision threshold. Performance results for FFDM show that as prevalence increases to 50%, there is a moderate increase in sensitivity and decrease in specificity, whereas AUC is mainly flat. Regarding precision, the statistical efficiency (ratio of variances) of sensitivity and specificity relative to AUC are 0.66 at best and decrease with prevalence. Analyses comparing modalities and the study populations (screening vs. challenge) are still ongoing.

Mammographic Density Change With Estrogen and Progestin Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk.

Background: Estrogen plus progestin therapy increases both mammographic density and breast cancer incidence. Whether mammographic density change associated with estrogen plus progestin initiation predicts breast cancer risk is unknown. Methods: We conducted an ancillary nested case-control study within the Women's Health Initiative trial that randomly assigned postmenopausal women to daily conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg plus medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg or placebo. Mammographic density was assessed from mammograms taken prior to and one year after random assignment for 174 women who later developed breast cancer (cases) and 733 healthy women (controls). Logistic regression analyses included adjustment for confounders and baseline mammographic density when appropriate. Results: Among women in the estrogen plus progestin arm (97 cases/378 controls), each 1% positive change in percent mammographic density increased breast cancer risk 3% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.06). For women in the highest quintile of mammographic density change (>19.3% increase), breast cancer risk increased 3.6-fold (95% CI = 1.52 to 8.56). The effect of estrogen plus progestin use on breast cancer risk (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.82) was eliminated in this study, after adjusting for change in mammographic density (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.51). Conclusions: We found the one-year change in mammographic density after estrogen plus progestin initiation predicted subsequent increase in breast cancer risk. All of the increased risk from estrogen plus progestin use was mediated through mammographic density change. Doctors should evaluate changes in mammographic density with women who initiate estrogen plus progestin therapy and discuss the breast cancer risk implications.

Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS: Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast calcifications seen on mammography may be associated with benign conditions or malignancies. Accurate characterization of these calcifications is crucial to providing optimal care that may spare women unnecessary biopsies and appropriately allow interval mammography. The purpose of this study is to determine if consensus characterization of calcifications by two breast imaging experts using standardized criteria can establish that follow-up is a safe option. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, our breast imaging database was reviewed and the cases imaged between the years 1999 and 2001 were used to identify patients with calcifications who were recommended for a six-month follow-up or biopsy. All cases had been prospectively assessed by at least two expert breast imagers using standardized features to assess the findings before a recommendation for follow-up or a biopsy was made. A retrospective chart review examining the radiology reports was done to determine the percentage of women from each of the two groups who developed malignancies. RESULTS: Of 744 patients who had mammographically identified clusters of calcifications, 490 clusters (409 single and 81 multiple) were diagnosed as probably-benign, and a short-interval 6-month follow-up was recommended. Of these calcifications followed for three years, only two (0.5%) of the single clusters proved to be malignant, and malignancy was diagnosed at the 12-month follow-up examination. In both cases, the women were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of 254 clusters recommended for biopsy, 242 (215 single and 27 multiple) underwent biopsy. A total of 70 cancers were diagnosed: 54 (77.1%) were DCIS and 16 (22.9%) were primary invasive mammary carcinoma (10 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, 3 cases of invasive lobular carcinoma, 2 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, and one case of invasive mucinous carcinoma with DCIS). Twenty-nine percent of women who had a biopsy performed had calcifications associated with malignancy. In contrast, in the women whose calcifications were followed by mammography, only 0.5% went on to develop malignancies. CONCLUSION: Consensus review of calcifications by two breast imagers using standardized criteria is a safe follow-up option.

Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: HER-2/neu is a valuable prognostic and therapeutic marker in primary breast carcinoma. The objective of this study was to determine the mammographic and patient characteristics (age) that correlate with HER-2/neu overexpression in primary breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HER-2/neu characteristics and preoperative mammograms were available in 498 patients with 543 primary breast carcinomas (526 invasive carcinomas and 17 ductal carcinoma in situ). HER-2/neu status was determined by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. For evaluation of patient age distribution, age was divided into 5 groups. For mammography, breast composition and abnormal findings were categorized. Abnormal findings were divided into mass, calcification, architectural distortion, asymmetric density, or none. RESULTS: For age distribution, women under than 50 years had more frequent HER-2/neu overexpression than women aged 60-69 years (P < .05). On mammography, there was no significant correlation between breast composition and HER-2/neu status (P > .05). Calcifications were more significantly frequent in carcinomas with HER-2/neu overexpression (56%) than in those without HER-2/neu overexpression (40%) (P = .001). Of the 242 carcinomas with calcifications on mammography, fine linear morphology was more significantly frequent in carcinomas with HER-2/neu overexpression (20%) when compared with those without HER-2/neu overexpression (10%) (P = .023). Diffuse distribution of calcifications was more common in carcinomas with HER-2/neu overexpression (11%) compared with carcinomas without HER-2/neu overexpression (5%) (P = .051). CONCLUSION: HER-2/neu overexpression in primary breast carcinoma is correlated with patients' age (under age 50) and calcifications at mammography.

The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic mammography is performed on women with clinical symptoms that suggest breast cancer or women for whom further mammographic evaluation has been requested because of an abnormal screening mammography. We assessed whether the use of full-field digital mammography would improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in a diagnostic population compared with film-screen mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2003, 11,621 patients underwent diagnostic mammography at the University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill. Among these 11,621 patients, 1400 lesions in 1121 patients underwent biopsy. We included the biopsy-performed lesions, so PPV3 was used for comparison of PPVs between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Six breast radiologists interpreted the images using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System of the American College of Radiology. PPV3s were compared between film-screen and full-field digital mammography in the entire study cohort and in specified subgroups according to different radiologists, breast density, and lesion type on mammography. The chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparison of PPV3s between two modalities of mammography with the Bonferroni procedure for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: In the entire study cohort, PPV3s of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography were similar (difference in PPV3,-0.007; 95% confidence interval, -0.081 to 0.068; P = .8602). In predefined subgroups, there was no difference in PPV3 by the radiologist, breast density, or lesion type between two modalities of mammography (P > .005). CONCLUSION: There is no improvement in PPV for the diagnosis of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in a large diagnostic population.

A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection.

PURPOSE: To determine the speed, accuracy, ease of use, and user satisfaction of various electronic data entry platforms for use in the collection of mammography clinical trials data. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Four electronic data entry platforms were tested: standalone personal digital assistant (PDA), Tablet PC, digitizer Tablet/PDA Hybrid (DTP Hybrid), and digital pen (d-pen). Standard paper data entry was used as control. Each of five radiologist readers was assigned to enter interpretations for 20 screening mammograms using three out of the five data entry methods. Assistants recorded both start and stop data entry times of the radiologists and the number of help requests made. Data were checked for handwriting recognition accuracy for the d-pen platform using handwriting verification software. A user satisfaction survey was administered at the end of each platform reading session. RESULTS: Tablet PC and d-pen were statistically equivalent to conventional pen and paper in initial data entry speed. Average verification time for d-pen was significantly less than secondary electronic data entry of paper forms (p-value <0.001). The number of errors in handwriting recognition for d-pen was less than secondary electronic data entry of the paper forms data. Users were most satisfied with Tablet PC, d-pen, and conventional pen and paper for data entry. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet PC and d-pen are equally fast and easy-to-use data entry methods that are well tolerated by radiologist users. Handwriting recognition review and correction for the d-pen is significantly faster and more accurate than secondary manual keyboard and mouse data entry.

Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening.

Breast tomosynthesis, a three-dimensional x-ray based breast imaging technology, has been available for clinical use in the United States since 2011. In this paper we review the literature on breast cancer screening with this new technology including where gaps in knowledge remain.

Dedicated Three-dimensional Breast Computed Tomography: Lesion Characteristic Perception by Radiologists.

OBJECTIVES: To assess radiologist confidence in the characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a dedicated three-dimensional breast computed tomography (DBCT) system in comparison to diagnostic two-dimensional digital mammography (dxDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty women were recruited who were to undergo a breast biopsy for a Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesion evaluated with dxDM in this Institutional Review Board-approved study. The enrolled subjects underwent imaging of the breast(s) of concern using DBCT. Seven radiologists reviewed the cases. Each reader compared DBCT to the dxDM and was asked to specify the lesion type and BI-RADS score for each lesion and modality. They also compared lesion characteristics: Shape for masses or morphology for calcifications; and margins for masses or distribution for calcifications between the modalities using confidence scores (0-100). RESULTS: Twenty-four biopsied lesions were included in this study: 17 (70.8%) masses and 7 (29.2%) calcifications. Eight (33.3%) lesions were malignant, and 16 (66.7%) were benign. Across all lesions, there was no significant difference in the margin/distribution (Δ = -0.99, P = 0.84) and shape/morphology (Δ = -0.10, P = 0.98) visualization confidence scores of DBCT in relation to dxDM. However, analysis by lesion type showed a statistically significant increase in reader shape (Δ =11.34, P = 0.013) and margin (Δ =9.93, P = 0.023) visualization confidence with DBCT versus dxDM for masses and significant decrease in reader morphology (Δ = -29.95, P = 0.001) and distribution (Δ = -28.62, P = 0.002) visualization confidence for calcifications. CONCLUSION: Reader confidence in the characterization of suspicious masses is significantly improved with DBCT, but reduced for calcifications. Further study is needed to determine whether this technology can be used for breast cancer screening.

Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.

To determine if the improved contrast resolution of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with reduced spatial resolution allows for superior or equal phantom object detection compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). Tissue equivalent breast phantoms simulating an adipose to glandular ratio of 50/50,30/70, and 20/80 were imaged according to each manufacturers' recommendation with four full-field digital mammography units (Fuji, Sectra, Fischer, and General Electric) and a screen-film mammography unit (MammoMatII 2000, Siemens, Munich, Germany). A total of 20 images were obtained in both hard- and soft-copy formats. For the purpose of soft-copy display, the screen-film hard-copy images were digitized with a 50 microm micron scanner. Six radiologists, experts in breast imaging, and three physicists, experts in scoring mammography phantoms, participated in a reader study where each reader scored each phantom for visibility of line-pairs and for 24 objects (fibers, clusters of specks, and masses). The data were recorded, entered into a database, and analyzed by a mixed-effect model. The limiting spatial resolution in line-pairs per millimeter visible with the digital units was less, regardless of display modality used, than that provided by the screen-film unit. The difference was statistically significant for the General Electric (p < 0.01) and Fuji digital mammography units (p = 0.03). With respect to the number of visible objects, a statistically significant higher number could be detected with the screen-film unit as compared to the Fischer (p < 0.01) and Sectra (p < 0.01) digital mammography units, but there was no significant difference between the other digital units and screen film. Overall, there was significantly better performance on the 50/50 phantom than with the 30/70 and 20/80 phantoms (p = 0.01, p < 0.01) for object visibility. For the digital mammography units, soft-copy display performed better than hard-copy display for the Fischer and Sectra images, but worse for Fuji and General Electric. In addition, soft-copy display of digitized screen-film images was significantly better than hard-copy display (p =0.02) of the original screen films for object visibility, but worse for spatial resolution. The higher contrast resolution of the FFDM units tested did not result in improved detection of line-pair resolution or objects in the phantoms tested versus screen-film mammography. The phantom performance of a digital mammography unit seems to be influenced by the type of detection task (line-pair resolution versus object visibility), the display modality (soft-copy versus hard-copy) chosen to score the phantoms, and the parenchymal pattern composition of the phantom.