Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if direct radiography (DR) performs better than screen-film mammography (SF) and computed radiography (CR) in dense breasts in a decentralized organised Breast Cancer Screening Programme. To this end, screen-detected versus interval cancers were studied in different BI-RADS density classes for these imaging modalities. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 351,532 women who participated in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme in 2009 and 2010. Information on screen-detected and interval cancers, breast density scores of radiologist second readers, and imaging modality was obtained by linkage of the databases of the Centre of Cancer Detection and the Belgian Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Overall, 67% of occurring breast cancers are screen detected and 33% are interval cancers, with DR performing better than SF and CR. The interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. In the high-density class, the interval cancer rate exceeds the cancer detection rate for SF and CR, but not for DR. CONCLUSIONS: DR is superior to SF and CR with respect to cancer detection rates for high-density breasts. To reduce the high interval cancer rate in dense breasts, use of an additional imaging technique in screening can be taken into consideration. KEY POINTS: • Interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. • Cancer detection rate in high-density breasts is superior in DR. • IC rate exceeds CDR for SF and CR in high-density breasts. • DR performs better in high-density breasts for third readings and false-positives.

Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of digitalisation on performance parameters and breast dose of the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Both computed (CR) and direct radiography (DR) are compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). METHODS: Data from 975,673 mammographic examinations were collected from units which underwent digitalisation from SFM to CR (41 units) or DR (72 units) in the period 2005-2011. Performance indicators were obtained by consulting the Screening Programme database. Phantom and patient dosimetry data were acquired from the physical technical quality assurance of the programme. RESULTS: Digitalisation induced no significant change in cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinomas in situ and percentage of breast cancers smaller than 1 cm. A decrease in false-positive results and third readings was observed, which was a time-related observation. After digitalisation, positive predictive value (PPV) increased and recall rates decreased. Compared with SFM, an increase of 30% in mean glandular dose (MGD) was found for CR, while a similar change in the opposite direction was found for DR. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences in performance parameters after digitalisation were found. Transition of SFM to CR resulted in a higher MGD and associated lower detection-over-induction ratio (DIR), while the change to DR induced an improvement of DIR. KEY POINTS: • Performance parameters showed no major differences after digitalisation to CR or DR. • Transition from SFM to CR results in a higher mean glandular dose. • Transition from SFM to DR results in a lower mean glandular dose.

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

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

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM). METHODS: A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU). RESULTS: The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.

Teaching syllabus for radiological aspects of breast cancer screening with digital mammography.

The purpose of this study is to discuss the content of our new accreditation programme for radiologists' reading digital mammograms in a screening setting and to report our first experience with the new course. The course consisted of a theoretical part, given by the medical physicist, and a practical part given by the radiologist. The practical session is closely linked with the theoretical part and a reading session. The material is fully digital and can be presented on different platforms. In practice, the need for parallel soft-copy reading sessions on high-end workstations limits the number of participants. A high level of interactivity was noted between teacher and participant, with a thorough discussion of different digital mammography systems during a single teaching course. The main challenge for the teacher turned out to be the collection of representative material and the continuous updating of the material: new systems, processing techniques and artefacts need to be included regularly.

Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application.

In order to quantify the clinical quality of full-field digital mammography, a set of image quality parameters is developed. The set consisted of 12 image quality criteria and 8 physical characteristics of the image. The first set interrogates the visibility of anatomical structures and typical characteristics of a digital image, such as noise and saturation of dark and white areas. The second set of criteria evaluates contrast, sharpness and confidence with the representation of masses, microcalcifications and the image. The use of these criteria is reported in a retrospective study, in which the impact of dose on the radiological quality of digital mammograms is evaluated. Fifty patients acquired in a low-dose mode were retrieved and compared with 50 patients acquired in a dose mode that was set 41% higher. The dose affects, more than expected, contrast and sharpness of the image, whereas the visibility of the anatomical structures remains unchanged. With these parameters, quantification of the image quality is possible; however, because of subjectivity of the parameters, only intra-observer comparison and evaluation of the individual parameters rather than the overall results are advised. Together with physical tests of image quality, critical radiological evaluation of the quality should be included in the acceptance process of digital mammography.

Current status of digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Digital mammography is becoming the preferred technique for investigation of the breast. It is important, therefore, to analyze not only the accuracy of this technique in the screening and the diagnostic environment but also to evaluate its strengths and limits. In addition, communication with other specialists inside and outside the hospital is essential. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent publications of large clinical trials have shown that digital mammography is as accurate as film-screen mammography in a screening setting. Technical protocols for acceptance testing of these modalities are emerging but they are not yet complete. The literature shows that reading on soft copy may be preferred to hard copy. The high cost is still an important limiting factor in the easy introduction of full-field digital mammography in a hospital. SUMMARY: Digital mammography is becoming the method of choice in the detection and characterization of breast cancer. Today, physical and technical protocols as well as large clinical trials are assessing the performance of this technology. A lot of work remains in the optimization of the different parts of the imaging chain: exposure setting, acceptability of detectors, dedicated post processing, viewing conditions and computer-aided detection. In parallel with these developments, newer digital technologies are being explored (tomosynthesis).