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.

Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.

BACKGROUND: Interpretive performance of screening mammography varies substantially by facility, but performance of diagnostic interpretation has not been studied. METHODS: Facilities performing diagnostic mammography within three registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were surveyed about their structure, organization, and interpretive processes. Performance measurements (false-positive rate, sensitivity, and likelihood of cancer among women referred for biopsy [positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation {PPV2}]) from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2005, were prospectively measured. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, adjusted for patient and radiologist characteristics, were used to assess the association between facility characteristics and interpretive performance. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Forty-five of the 53 facilities completed a facility survey (85% response rate), and 32 of the 45 facilities performed diagnostic mammography. The analyses included 28 100 diagnostic mammograms performed as an evaluation of a breast problem, and data were available for 118 radiologists who interpreted diagnostic mammograms at the facilities. Performance measurements demonstrated statistically significant interpretive variability among facilities (sensitivity, P = .006; false-positive rate, P < .001; and PPV2, P < .001) in unadjusted analyses. However, after adjustment for patient and radiologist characteristics, only false-positive rate variation remained statistically significant and facility traits associated with performance measures changed (false-positive rate = 6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.5% to 7.4%; sensitivity = 73.5%, 95% CI = 67.1% to 79.9%; and PPV2 = 33.8%, 95% CI = 29.1% to 38.5%). Facilities reporting that concern about malpractice had moderately or greatly increased diagnostic examination recommendations at the facility had a higher false-positive rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.01) and a non-statistically significantly higher sensitivity (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.94 to 3.23). Facilities offering specialized interventional services had a non-statistically significantly higher false-positive rate (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 0.94 to 4.1). No characteristics were associated with overall accuracy by ROC curve analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in diagnostic mammography interpretation exists across facilities. Failure to adjust for patient characteristics when comparing facility performance could lead to erroneous conclusions. Malpractice concerns are associated with interpretive performance.

Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Although interpretive performance varies substantially among radiologists, such variation has not been examined among mammography facilities. Understanding sources of facility variation could become a foundation for improving interpretive performance. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study conducted between 1996 and 2002, we surveyed 53 facilities to evaluate associations between facility structure, interpretive process characteristics, and interpretive performance of screening mammography (ie, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and the likelihood of cancer among women who were referred for biopsy [PPV2]). Measures of interpretive performance were ascertained prospectively from mammography interpretations and cancer data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses estimated the association between facility characteristics and mammography interpretive performance or accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). All P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Of the 53 eligible facilities, data on 44 could be analyzed. These 44 facilities accounted for 484 463 screening mammograms performed on 237 669 women, of whom 2686 were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Among the 44 facilities, mean sensitivity was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.3% to 84.9%), mean specificity was 90.2% (95% CI = 88.3% to 92.0%), mean PPV1 was 4.1% (95% CI = 3.5% to 4.7%), and mean PPV2 was 38.8% (95% CI = 32.6% to 45.0%). The facilities varied statistically significantly in specificity (P < .001), PPV1 (P < .001), and PPV2 (P = .002) but not in sensitivity (P = .99). AUC was higher among facilities that offered screening mammograms alone vs those that offered screening and diagnostic mammograms (0.943 vs 0.911, P = .006), had a breast imaging specialist interpreting mammograms vs not (0.932 vs 0.905, P = .004), did not perform double reading vs independent double reading vs consensus double reading (0.925 vs 0.915 vs 0.887, P = .034), or conducted audit reviews two or more times per year vs annually vs at an unknown frequency (0.929 vs 0.904 vs 0.900, P = .018). CONCLUSION: Mammography interpretive performance varies statistically significantly by facility.

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear. METHODS: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo cosmetic augmentation have larger and denser breasts and receive higher radiation doses during mammography than women without implants. In this study we evaluated the dose increase and techniques for dose reduction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Mean glandular dose to the breast during screening mammography was measured for 206 women who had undergone breast augmentation. For 13 of these women, mean glandular dose from preoperative mammography also was measured. Effective tube current, peak kilovoltage, and breast thickness were measured, and mean glandular dose was calculated for 1,632 images. Two screen-film combinations and three target-filter combinations were studied. RESULTS: For four-view augmentation mammography with a molybdenum-molybdenum (Mo-Mo) target-filter combination, mean glandular dose was reduced 35%, from 10.7 to 7.0 mGy, by changing the screen-film combination from 100 to 190 speed. For four-view augmentation mammography, mean glandular dose was reduced 24% by changing the target-filter combination from Mo-Mo to rhodium-rhodium (Rh-Rh) for full views of breasts containing implants. For four-view augmentation mammography, mean glandular dose was reduced 50% by changing the screen-film combination from 100 to 190 speed and changing the target-filter combination from Mo-Mo to Rh-Rh for implant-full views. CONCLUSION: Mean glandular dose per breast from four-view augmentation mammography with the 100-speed screen-film and Mo-Mo target-filter combinations averaged 10.7 mGy, which is 3.1 times higher than the 3.4 mGy for conventional two-view mammography of breasts without implants. In 40 years of screening, this number represents a more than tripled lifetime attributable risk of radiation-induced breast cancer--an unacceptable level. Use of faster screen-film combinations, use of Rh-Rh target-filter combinations, and acquisition of three rather than four views are dose-reduction methods that together result in a 66% dose reduction, from 10.7 to 3.6 mGy. Mean glandular dose should be kept less than 7.0 mGy per breast for screening mammography of patients with breast implants.

Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

BACKGROUND: Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. MEASUREMENT: Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation). CONCLUSION: Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.

Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare acquisition times and interpretation times of screening examinations using screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Technologist study acquisition time from examination initiation to release of the screenee was measured for both screen-film and digital mammography (100 cases each) in routine clinical practice. The total interpretation time for screening mammography was also measured for 183 hard-copy screen-film cases and 181 soft-copy digital cases interpreted by a total of seven breast imaging radiologists, four experienced breast imagers, and three breast imaging fellows. RESULTS: Screening mammography acquisition time averaged 21.6 minutes for screen-film and 14.1 minutes for digital, a highly significant 35% shorter time for digital than screen-film (p < 10(-17)). The average number of images per case acquired with digital mammography was higher than that for screen-film mammography (4.23 for screen-film, 4.50 for digital; p = 0.047). The total interpretation time averaged 1.4 minutes for screen-film mammography and 2.3 minutes for digital mammography, a highly significant 57% longer interpretation time for digital (p < 10(-11)). In addition, technical problems delaying interpretation were encountered in none of the 183 screen-film cases but occurred in nine (5%) of the 181 digital cases. CONCLUSION: Compared with screen-film mammography, the use of digital mammography for screening examinations significantly shortened acquisition time but significantly increased interpretation time. In addition, more technical problems were encountered that delayed the interpretation of digital cases.

Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation. RESULTS: Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted. CONCLUSION: Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.

Contrast-detail experiments were performed to optimize technique factors for the detection of low-contrast lesions using a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system under the conditions of a matched average glandular dose (AGD) for different techniques. Optimization was performed for compressed breast thickness from 2 to 8 cm. FFDM results were compared to screen-film mammography (SFM) at each breast thickness. Four contrast-detail (CD) images were acquired on a SFM unit with optimal techniques at 2, 4, 6, and 8 cm breast thicknesses. The AGD for each breast thickness was calculated based on half-value layer (HVL) and entrance exposure measurements on the SFM unit. A computer algorithm was developed and used to determine FFDM beam current (mAs) that matched AGD between FFDM and SFM at each thickness, while varying target, filter, and peak kilovoltage (kVp) across the full range available for the FFDM unit. CD images were then acquired on FFDM for kVp values from 23-35 for a molybdenum-molybdenum (Mo-Mo), 23-40 for a molybdenum-rhodium (Mo-Rh), and 25-49 for a rhodium-rhodium (Rh-Rh) target-filter under the constraint of matching the AGD from screen-film for each breast thickness (2, 4, 6, and 8 cm). CD images were scored independently for SFM and each FFDM technique by six readers. CD scores were analyzed to assess trends as a function of target-filter and kVp and were compared to SFM at each breast thickness. For 2 cm thick breasts, optimal FFDM CD scores occurred at the lowest possible kVp setting for each target-filter, with significant decreases in FFDM CD scores as kVp was increased under the constraint of matched AGD. For 2 cm breasts, optimal FFDM CD scores were not significantly different from SFM CD scores. For 4-8 cm breasts, optimum FFDM CD scores were superior to SFM CD scores. For 4 cm breasts, FFDM CD scores decreased as kVp increased for each target-filter combination. For 6 cm breasts, CD scores decreased slightly as kVp increased for Mo-Mo, but did not change significantly as a function of kVp for either Mo-Rh or Rh-Rh. For 8 cm breasts, Rh/Rh FFDM CD scores were superior to other target-filter combinations and increased significantly as kVp increased. These results indicate that low-contrast lesion detection was optimized for FFDM by using a softer x-ray beam for thin breasts and a harder x-ray beam for thick breasts, when AGD was kept constant for a given breast thickness. Under this constraint, optimum low-contrast lesion detection with FFDM was superior to that for SFM for all but the thinnest breasts.

Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Results of acceptance testing 18 full-field digital mammography systems for clinical use and of conducting annual physics surveys of 38 screen-film mammography systems were compared in terms of exposure times, mean glandular breast doses, and image quality. These evaluations were made using the same test tools on all systems, with emphasis on assessing automatic exposure control performance and image quality on both digital and screen-film systems using clinical techniques. Survey results indicated that digital mammography systems performed similarly to screen-film systems in terms of exposure times and mean glandular doses for thin to intermediate breasts, but that digital mammography systems selected shorter exposure times and lower mean glandular doses for thicker breasts. For all breast thicknesses, digital mammography systems yielded mean contrast-detail scores higher than those for screen-film systems. For all breast thicknesses, the 18 digital mammography systems demonstrated less variance in terms of exposure times, mean glandular doses, and contrast-detail scores than did the 38 screen-film systems tested. These results indicate that the clinical use of digital mammography may generally improve image quality for equal or lower breast doses, while providing tighter control on exposures and image quality than screen-film mammography.