ABSTRACT
An abundance of laboratory-based experiments has described a vigilance decrement of reducing accuracy to detect targets with time on task, but there are few real-world studies, none of which have previously controlled the environment to control for bias. We describe accuracy in clinical practice for 360 experts who examined >1 million women's mammograms for signs of cancer, whilst controlling for potential biases. The vigilance decrement pattern was not observed. Instead, test accuracy improved over time, through a reduction in false alarms and an increase in speed, with no significant change in sensitivity. The multiple-decision model explains why experts miss targets in low prevalence settings through a change in decision threshold and search quit threshold and propose it should be adapted to explain these observed patterns of accuracy with time on task. What is typically thought of as standard and robust research findings in controlled laboratory settings may not directly apply to real-world environments and instead large, controlled studies in relevant environments are needed.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Mammography , Fatigue , Laboratories , Research DesignABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore how the number and type of breast cancers developed after screen detected atypia compare with the anticipated 11.3 cancers detected per 1000 women screened within one three year screening round in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Observational analysis of the Sloane atypia prospective cohort in England. SETTING: Atypia diagnoses through the English NHS breast screening programme reported to the Sloane cohort study. This cohort is linked to the English Cancer Registry and the Mortality and Birth Information System for information on subsequent breast cancer and mortality. PARTICIPANTS: 3238 women diagnosed as having epithelial atypia between 1 April 2003 and 30 June 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of invasive breast cancers detected at one, three, and six years after atypia diagnosis by atypia type, age, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: There was a fourfold increase in detection of atypia after the introduction of digital mammography between 2010 (n=119) and 2015 (n=502). During 19 088 person years of follow-up after atypia diagnosis (until December 2018), 141 women developed breast cancer. Cumulative incidence of cancer per 1000 women with atypia was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 2.69), 14.2 (10.3 to 19.1), and 45.0 (36.3 to 55.1) at one, three, and six years after atypia diagnosis, respectively. Women with atypia detected more recently have lower rates of subsequent cancers detected within three years (6.0 invasive cancers per 1000 women (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 10.9) in 2013-18 v 24.3 (13.7 to 40.1) in 2003-07, and 24.6 (14.9 to 38.3) in 2008-12). Grade, size, and nodal involvement of subsequent invasive cancers were similar to those of cancers detected in the general screening population, with equal numbers of ipsilateral and contralateral cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Many atypia could represent risk factors rather than precursors of invasive cancer requiring surgery in the short term. Women with atypia detected more recently have lower rates of subsequent cancers detected, which might be associated with changes to mammography and biopsy techniques identifying forms of atypia that are more likely to represent overdiagnosis. Annual mammography in the short term after atypia diagnosis might not be beneficial. More evidence is needed about longer term risks.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , State Medicine , Female , Humans , Cohort Studies , Prospective Studies , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Mammography/methods , England/epidemiology , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
Evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential to maximize patient benefit and to reduce clinical uncertainty and inconsistency in clinical practice. Gaps in the evidence base can be addressed by data acquired in routine practice. At present, there is no international consensus on management of women diagnosed with atypical lesions in breast screening programmes. Here, we describe how routine NHS breast screening data collected by the Sloane atypia project was used to inform a management pathway that maximizes early detection of cancer and minimizes over-investigation of lesions with uncertain malignant potential. A half-day consensus meeting with 11 clinical experts, 1 representative from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, 6 representatives from NHS England (NHSE) including from Commissioning, and 2 researchers was held to facilitate discussions of findings from an analysis of the Sloane atypia project. Key considerations of the expert group in terms of the management of women with screen detected atypia were: (1) frequency and purpose of follow-up; (2) communication to patients; (3) generalizability of study results; and (4) workforce challenges. The group concurred that the new evidence does not support annual surveillance mammography for women with atypia, irrespective of type of lesion, or woman's age. Continued data collection is paramount to monitor and audit the change in recommendations.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Clinical Decision-Making , Female , Humans , Consensus , Uncertainty , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast/pathology , Mammography/methods , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to asses, in a clinical setting, whether the newly available quantitative evaluation of electron density (ED) in spectral CT examinations of the breast provide information on the biological identity of solid breast masses and whether ED maps yield added value to the diagnostic information of iodine maps and Zeff maps calculated from the same CT image datasets. METHODS: All patients at the University Breast Cancer Center who underwent a clinically indicated Dual Layer Computed Tomography (DLCT) examination for staging of invasive breast cancer from 2018 to 2020 were prospectively included. Iodine concentration maps, Zeff maps and ED maps were automatically reconstructed from the DLCT datasets. Region of interest (ROI) based evaluations in the breast target lesions and in the aorta were performed semi-automatically in identical anatomical positions using dedicated evaluation software. Case-by-case evaluations were carried independently by 2 of 4 radiologists for each examination, respectively. Statistical analysis derived from the ROIs was done by calculating ROC/AUC curves and Youden indices. RESULTS: The evaluations comprised 166 DLCT examinations. In the ED maps the measurements in the breast target lesions yielded Youden cutpoints of 104.0% (reader 1) and 103.8% (reader 2) resulting in AUCs of 0.63 and 0.67 at the empirical cutpoints. The variables "Zeff" and "iodine content" derived from the target lesions showed superior diagnostical results, with a Youden cutpoint of 8.0 mg/ml in the iodine maps and cutpoints of 1.1/1.2 in the Zeff maps the AUCs ranging from 0.84 to 0.85 (p = 0.023 to <0.000). The computational combination of Zeff and ED measurements in the target lesions yielded a slight AUC increase (readers 1: 0.85-0.87; readers 2: 0.84-0.94). The ratios of the measured values in the target lesions normalized to the values measured in the aorta showed comparable results. The AUCs of ED derived from the cutpoints showed inferior results to those derived from the Zeff maps and iodine maps (ED: 0.64 and 0.66 for reader 1 and 2; Zeff: 0.86 for both readers; iodine content: 0.89 and 0.86 for reader 1 and 2, respectively). The computational combination of the ED results and the Zeff measurements did not lead to a clinically relevant diagnostic gain with AUCs ranging from 0.86 to 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessments of Zeff, iodine content and ED all targeting the physical and chemical aspects of iodine uptake in solid breast masses confirmed diagnostically robust cutpoints for the differentiation of benign and malignant findings (Zeff < 7.7, iodine content of <0.8 mg/ml). The evaluations of the ED did not indicate any added diagnostic value beyond the quantitative assessments of Zeff and iodine content. Further research is warranted to develop suitable clinical indications for the use of ED maps.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Iodine , Humans , Female , Electrons , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , ROC Curve , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To build a data set capturing the whole breast cancer screening journey from individual breast cancer screening records to outcomes and assess data quality. METHODS: Routine screening records (invitation, attendance, test results) from all 79 English NHS breast screening centres between January 1, 1988 and March 31, 2018 were linked to cancer registry (cancer characteristics and treatment) and national mortality data. Data quality was assessed using comparability, validity, timeliness, and completeness. RESULTS: Screening records were extracted from 76/79 English breast screening centres, 3/79 were not possible due to software issues. Data linkage was successful from 1997 after introduction of a universal identifier for women (NHS number). Prior to 1997 outcome data are incomplete due to linkage issues, reducing validity. Between January 1, 1997 and March 31, 2018, a total of 11 262 730 women were offered screening of whom 9 371 973 attended at least one appointment, with 139 million person-years of follow-up (a median of 12.4 person years for each woman included) with 73 810 breast cancer deaths and 1 111 139 any-cause deaths. Comparability to reference data sets and internal validity were demonstrated. Data completeness was high for core screening variables (>99%) and main cancer outcomes (>95%). CONCLUSIONS: The ATHENA-M project has created a large high-quality and representative data set of individual women's screening trajectories and outcomes in England from 1997 to 2018, data before 1997 are lower quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the most complete data set of English breast screening records and outcomes constructed to date, which can be used to evaluate and optimize screening.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Semantic Web , Female , Humans , State Medicine , Mammography , BreastABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented. METHODS: Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews. RESULTS: Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Female , Humans , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Health Status , Patient Selection , Middle AgedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To pilot a process for the independent external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to detect breast cancer using data from the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: A representative data set of mammography images from 26,000 women attending 2 NHS screening centres, and an enriched data set of 2054 positive cases were used from the OPTIMAM image database. The use case of the AI tool was the replacement of the first or second human reader. The performance of the AI tool was compared to that of human readers in the NHSBSP. RESULTS: Recommendations for future external validations of AI tools to detect breast cancer are provided. The tool recalled different breast cancers to the human readers. This study showed the importance of testing AI tools on all types of cases (including non-standard) and the clarity of any warning messages. The acceptable difference in sensitivity and specificity between the AI tool and human readers should be determined. Any information vital for the clinical application should be a required output for the AI tool. It is recommended that the interaction of radiologists with the AI tool, and the effect of the AI tool on arbitration be investigated prior to clinical use. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrated several lessons for future independent external validation of AI tools for breast cancer detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge has been gained towards best practice procedures for performing independent external validations of AI tools for the detection of breast cancer using data from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Artificial Intelligence , Mammography/methods , Breast/diagnostic imaging , United Kingdom , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The introduction of breast screening in the UK led to an increase in the detection of non-invasive breast neoplasia, predominantly ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a non-obligatory precursor of invasive breast cancer. The Sloane Project, a UK prospective cohort study of screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia, commenced in 2003 to evaluate the radiological assessment, surgical management, pathology, adjuvant therapy and outcomes for non-invasive breast neoplasia. Long-term follow-up and accurate data collection are essential to examine the clinical impact. Here, we describe the establishment, development and analytical processes for this large UK cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with non-invasive breast neoplasia via the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) from 01 April 2003 are eligible, with a minimum age of 46 years. Diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up data collected via proformas, complement date and cause of death from national data sources. Accrual for patients with DCIS ceased in 2012 but is ongoing for patients with epithelial atypia/in situ neoplasia, while follow-up for all continues long term. FINDINGS TO DATE: To date, patients within the Sloane cohort comprise one-third of those diagnosed with DCIS within the NHSBSP and are representative of UK practice. DCIS has a variable outcome and confirms the need for longer-term follow-up for screen-detected DCIS. However, the radiology and pathology features of DCIS can be used to inform patient management. We demonstrate validation of follow-up information collected from national datasets against traditional, manual methods. FUTURE PLANS: Conclusions derived from the Sloane Project are generalisable to women in the UK with screen-detected DCIS. The follow-up methodology may be extended to other UK cohort studies and routine clinical follow-up. Data from English patients entered into the Sloane Project are available on request to researchers under data sharing agreement. Annual follow-up data collection will continue for a minimum of 20 years.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/diagnosis , Prospective Studies , Mastectomy , Cohort Studies , Mammography/methods , State Medicine , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , United KingdomABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme aims to detect cancer earlier when treatment is more effective but can harm women by over diagnosing and overtreating cancers which would never have become symptomatic. As well as breast cancer, a spectrum of atypical epithelial proliferations (atypia) can also be detected as part of screening. This spectrum of changes, while not cancer, may mean that a woman is more likely to develop breast cancer in the future. Follow-up of atypia is not evidence based. We currently do not know which atypia should be detected to avoid future cancer. This study will explore how atypia develops into breast cancer in terms of number of women, time of cancer development, cancer type and severity, and whether this varies for different types of atypia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Sloane cohort study began in April 2003 with ongoing data collection including atypia diagnosed through screening at screening units in the UK. The database for England has 3645 cases (24 September 2020) of epithelial atypia, with follow-up from 1 to 15 years. The outcomes include subsequent invasive breast cancer and the nature of subsequent cancer. Descriptive statistics will be produced. The observed rates of breast cancer at 1, 3 and 6 years for types of atypia will be reported with CIs, to enable comparison to women in the general population. Time to event methods will be used to describe the time to breast cancer diagnosis for the types of atypia, including flexible parametric modelling if appropriate. Patient representatives from Independent Cancer Patients' Voice are included at every stage of the research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received research ethics approval from the University of Warwick Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 10/20-21, 8 October 2020), Public Health England office for data release approvals (ODR1718_313) and approval from the English Breast Research Advisory Committee (BSPRAC_031). The findings will be disseminated to breast screening clinicians (via journal publication and conference presentation), to the NHS Breast Screening Programme to update their guidelines on how women with atypia should be followed up, and to the general public.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , State Medicine , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Observational Studies as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is poorly understood. The aim of this cohort study was to determine the outcomes of women who had no surgery for screen-detected DCIS in the 6 months following diagnosis. METHODS: English breast screening databases were retrospectively searched for women diagnosed with DCIS without invasive cancer at screening and who had no record of surgery within 6 months of diagnosis. These were cross-referenced with cancer registry data. Details of the potentially eligible women were sent to the relevant breast screening units for verification and for completion of data forms detailing clinical, radiological and pathological findings, non-surgical treatment and subsequent clinical course. RESULTS: Data for 311 eligible women (median age 62 years) were available. 60 women developed invasive cancer, 56 ipsilateral and 4 contralateral. Ipsilateral invasion risk increased approximately linearly with time for at least 10 years. The 10-year cumulative risk of ipsilateral invasion was 9% (95% CI 4-21%), 39% (24-58%) and 36% (24-50%) for low, intermediate and high grade DCIS respectively and was higher in younger women, in those with larger DCIS lesions and in those with microinvasion. Most invasive cancers that developed were grade 2 or 3. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that active surveillance may be a reasonable alternative to surgery in patients with low grade DCIS but that women with intermediate or high grade disease should continue to be offered surgery. This highlights the importance of reproducible grading of DCIS to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment.
Subject(s)
Breast Carcinoma In Situ , Breast Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/diagnostic imaging , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: In breast cancer screening, two readers separately examine each woman's mammograms for signs of cancer. We examined whether preventing the two readers from seeing each other's decisions (blinding) affects behaviour and outcomes. METHODS: This cohort study used data from the CO-OPS breast-screening trial (1,119,191 women from 43 screening centres in England) where all discrepant readings were arbitrated. Multilevel models were fitted using Markov chain Monte Carlo to measure whether reader 2 conformed to the decisions of reader 1 when they were not blinded, and the effect of blinding on overall rates of recall for further tests and cancer detection. Differences in positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: When reader 1 recalls, the probability of reader 2 also recalling was higher when not blinded than when blinded, suggesting readers may be influenced by the other's decision. Overall, women were less likely to be recalled when reader 2 was blinded (OR 0.923; 95% credible interval 0.864, 0.986), with no clear pattern in cancer detection rate (OR 1.029; 95% credible interval 0.970, 1.089; Bayesian p value 0.832). PPV was 22.1% for blinded versus 20.6% for not blinded (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that when not blinded, reader 2 is influenced by reader 1's decisions to recall (alliterative bias) which would result in bypassing arbitration and negate some of the benefits of double-reading. We found a relationship between blinding the second reader and slightly higher PPV of breast cancer screening, although this analysis may be confounded by other centre characteristics. KEY POINTS: ⢠In Europe, it is recommended that breast screening mammograms are analysed by two readers but there is little evidence on the effect of 'blinding' the readers so they cannot see each other's decisions. ⢠We found evidence that when the second reader is not blinded, they are more likely to agree with a recall decision from the first reader and less likely to make an independent judgement (alliterative error). This may reduce overall accuracy through bypassing arbitration. ⢠This observational study suggests an association between blinding the second reader and higher positive predictive value of screening, but this may be confounded by centre characteristics.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Bayes Theorem , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Mammography , Mass Screening , Observer VariationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the detection of subtle lesions (calcification clusters or masses) when using the combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and synthetic mammography (SM) with digital mammography (DM) alone or combined with DBT. METHODS: A set of 166 cases without cancer was acquired on a DBT mammography system. Realistic subtle calcification clusters and masses in the DM images and DBT planes were digitally inserted into 104 of the acquired cases. Three study arms were created: DM alone, DM with DBT and SM with DBT. Five mammographic readers located the centre of any lesion within the images that should be recalled for further investigation and graded their suspiciousness. A JAFROC figure of merit (FoM) and lesion detection fraction (LDF) were calculated for each study arm. The visibility of the lesions in the DBT images was compared with SM and DM images. RESULTS: For calcification clusters, there were no significant differences (p > 0.075) in FoM or LDF. For masses, the FoM and LDF were significantly improved in the arms using DBT compared to DM alone (p < 0.001). On average, both calcification clusters and masses were more visible on DBT than on DM and SM images. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that masses were detected better with DBT than with DM alone and there was no significant difference (p = 0.075) in LDF between DM&DBT and SM&DBT for calcifications clusters. Our results support previous studies that it may be acceptable to not acquire digital mammography alongside tomosynthesis for subtle calcification clusters and ill-defined masses. KEY POINTS: ⢠The detection of masses was significantly better using DBT than with digital mammography alone. ⢠The detection of calcification clusters was not significantly different between digital mammography and synthetic 2D images combined with tomosynthesis. ⢠Our results support previous studies that it may be acceptable to not acquire digital mammography alongside tomosynthesis for subtle calcification clusters and ill-defined masses for the imaging technology used.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Calcinosis , Neoplasms , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Calcinosis/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , MammographyABSTRACT
Breast cancer screening with mammography reduces mortality in the women who attend by detecting high risk cancer early. It is far from perfect with variations in both sensitivity for the detection of cancer and very wide variations in specificity, leading to unnecessary recalls and biopsies. Over the last 12 months several papers have reported on AI algorithms that perform as well as human readers on large well curated population data sets. The nature of the test sets, the way the gold standard has been calculated, the definition of a positive call, and the statistics used all influence the results. Historically retrospective studies have not predicted the real-life performance of radiologist plus machine. So, it is important to perform prospective studies before introducing Artificial intelligence into real world breast screening.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Breast Neoplasms , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Mammography , Mass Screening , Prospective Studies , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether quantitative breast density (BD) serves as an imaging biomarker for more intensive breast cancer screening by predicting interval, and node-positive cancers. METHODS: This case-control study of 1204 women aged 47-73 includes 599 cancer cases (302 screen-detected, 297 interval; 239 node-positive, 360 node-negative) and 605 controls. Automated BD software calculated fibroglandular volume (FGV), volumetric breast density (VBD) and density grade (DG). A radiologist assessed BD using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100. Logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) determined whether BD could predict mode of detection (screen-detected or interval); node-negative cancers; node-positive cancers, and all cancers vs. controls. RESULTS: FGV, VBD, VAS, and DG all discriminated interval cancers (all p < 0.01) from controls. Only FGV-quartile discriminated screen-detected cancers (p < 0.01). Based on AUC, FGV discriminated all cancer types better than VBD or VAS. FGV showed a significantly greater discrimination of interval cancers, AUC = 0.65, than of screen-detected cancers, AUC = 0.61 (p < 0.01) as did VBD (0.63 and 0.53, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FGV, VBD, VAS and DG discriminate interval cancers from controls, reflecting some masking risk. Only FGV discriminates screen-detected cancers perhaps adding a unique component of breast cancer risk.
Subject(s)
Breast Density , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Mammography/methods , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Visual Analog ScaleABSTRACT
Supplemental material is available for this article.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To validate a candidate instrument, to be used by different professionals to assess image quality in digital mammography (DM), against detection performance results. METHODS: A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) study was conducted to assess the detection performance in DM images with four different image quality levels due to different quality issues. Fourteen expert breast radiologists from five countries assessed a set of 80 DM cases, containing 60 lesions (40 cancers, 20 benign findings) and 20 normal cases. A visual grading analysis (VGA) study using a previously-described candidate instrument was conducted to evaluate a subset of 25 of the images used in the ROC study. Eight radiologists that had participated in the ROC study, and seven expert breast-imaging physicists, evaluated this subset. The VGA score (VGAS) and the ROC and visual grading characteristics (VGC) areas under the curve (AUCROC and AUCVGC) were compared. RESULTS: No large differences in image quality among the four levels were detected by either ROC or VGA studies. However, the ranking of the four levels was consistent: level 1 (partial AUCROC: 0.070, VGAS: 6.77) performed better than levels 2 (0.066, 6.15), 3 (0.061, 5.82), and 4 (0.062, 5.37). Similarity between radiologists' and physicists' assessments was found (average VGAS difference of 10 %). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the candidate instrument were found to correlate with those from ROC analysis, when used by either observer group. Therefore, it may be used by different professionals, such as radiologists, radiographers, and physicists, to assess clinically-relevant image quality variations in DM.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Mammography , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Humans , ROC Curve , Radiographic Image Enhancement , RadiologistsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To study how radiologists' perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. RESULTS: Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. KEY POINTS: ⢠Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists' perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. ⢠Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. ⢠In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Calcinosis , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Calcinosis/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Mammography , Radiographic Image Enhancement , RadiologistsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To develop a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography, by identifying clinically relevant features in images that are affected by lower image quality. METHODS: Interviews with fifteen expert breast radiologists from five countries were conducted and analysed by using adapted directed content analysis. During these interviews, 45 mammographic cases, containing 44 lesions (30 cancers, 14 benign findings), and 5 normal cases, were shown with varying image quality. The interviews were performed to identify the structures from breast tissue and lesions relevant for image interpretation, and to investigate how image quality affected the visibility of those structures. The interview findings were used to develop tentative items, which were evaluated in terms of wording, understandability, and ambiguity with expert breast radiologists. The relevance of the tentative items was evaluated using the content validity index (CVI) and modified kappa index (k*). RESULTS: Twelve content areas, representing the content of image quality in digital mammography, emerged from the interviews and were converted into 29 tentative items. Fourteen of these items demonstrated excellent CVIâ¯≥â¯0.78 (k* > 0.74), one showed good CVIâ¯<â¯0.78 (0.60 ≤ k* ≤ 0.74), while fourteen were of fair or poor CVIâ¯<â¯0.78 (k* ≤ 0.59). In total, nine items were deleted and five were revised or combined resulting in 18 items. CONCLUSIONS: By following a mixed-method methodology, a candidate instrument was developed that may be used to characterise the clinically-relevant impact that image quality variations can have on digital mammography.
Subject(s)
Breast , Mammography , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Research DesignABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Sloane audit compares screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) pathology with subsequent management and outcomes. METHODS: This was a national, prospective cohort study of DCIS diagnosed during 2003-2012. RESULTS: Among 11,337 patients, 7204 (64%) had high-grade DCIS. Over time, the proportion of high-grade disease increased (from 60 to 65%), low-grade DCIS decreased (from 10 to 6%) and mean size increased (from 21.4 to 24.1 mm). Mastectomy was more common for high-grade (36%) than for low-grade DCIS (15%). Few (6%) patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) had a surgical margin <1 mm. Of the 9191 women diagnosed in England (median follow-up 9.4 years), 7% developed DCIS or invasive malignancy in the ipsilateral and 5% in the contralateral breast. The commonest ipsilateral event was invasive carcinoma (n = 413), median time 62 months, followed by DCIS (n = 225), at median 37 months. Radiotherapy (RT) was most protective against recurrence for high-grade DCIS (3.2% for high-grade DCIS with RT compared to 6.9% without, compared with 2.3 and 3.0%, respectively, for low/intermediate-grade DCIS). Ipsilateral DCIS events lessened after 5 years, while the risk of ipsilateral invasive cancer remained consistent to beyond 10 years. CONCLUSION: DCIS pathology informs patient management and highlights the need for prolonged follow-up of screen-detected DCIS.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/surgery , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mastectomy , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: This multicentre, retrospective study aimed to establish correlation between estimated tumour volume doubling times (TVDT) from a series of interval breast cancers with their clinicopathological features. The potential impact of delayed diagnosis on prognosis was also explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Interval cancers, where screening mammograms demonstrated changes that were retrospectively classified as either uncertain or suspicious, were reviewed from five screening units within the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). Data collected included the time interval between screening mammogram and cancer diagnosis, the size of the initial mammographic abnormality and of the subsequent cancer, demographics, mammographic density and tumour biology. We estimated volume doubling times and the estimated change in size and node status, which would have followed if these cancers had been detected at the previous screen. RESULTS: 306 interval cancers meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Average time from screening to diagnosis was 644 days (SD 276 days). 19% were diagnosed in the first twelve months, 42% in the subsequent twelve months and 39% thereafter. Overall average estimated TVDT was 167 days (95% CI 151-186). Significant differences were noted with age (p = 0.01), grade (p < 0.001) and ER status (p < 0.001) with women under 60, grade 3 cancers and ER negative cancers having shorter TVDTs. HER2 positive tumours had shorter doubling times than HER2 negative, but this difference was not statistically significant. It was estimated that diagnosing these cancers at the previous screen would have increased ten-year survival from 82% to 86%. CONCLUSION: High grade, ER negativity and younger age were associated with shorter durations of TVDT. The role of HER2 status on interval cancer growth rate requires further assessment. It is likely that the delayed diagnosis of interval cancers confers a 4% reduction in ten-year survival.