Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 3/2016

01.03.2016 | Breast

Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors

verfasst von: Alistair Mackenzie, Lucy M. Warren, Matthew G. Wallis, Julie Cooke, Rosalind M. Given-Wilson, David R. Dance, Dev P. Chakraborty, Mark D. Halling-Brown, Padraig T. Looney, Kenneth C. Young

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection.

Methods

A mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-selenium (a-Se) detectors. The images were adapted to simulate four types of detectors at the same radiation dose: digital radiography (DR) detectors with a-Se and caesium iodide (CsI) convertors, and computed radiography (CR) detectors with a powder phosphor (PIP) and a needle phosphor (NIP). Seven observers marked suspicious and benign lesions. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). The cancer detection fraction (CDF) was estimated for a representative image set from screening.

Results

No significant differences in the FoMs between the DR detectors were measured. For calcification clusters and non-calcification lesions, both CR detectors’ FoMs were significantly lower than for DR detectors. The calcification cluster’s FoM for CR NIP was significantly better than for CR PIP. The estimated CDFs with CR PIP and CR NIP detectors were up to 15 % and 22 % lower, respectively, than for DR detectors.

Conclusion

Cancer detection is affected by detector type, and the use of CR in mammography should be reconsidered.

Key Points

The type of mammography detector can affect the cancer detection rates.
CR detectors performed worse than DR detectors in mammography.
Needle phosphor CR performed better than powder phosphor CR.
Calcification clusters detection is more sensitive to detector type than other cancers.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191CrossRefPubMed Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714CrossRefPubMed Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Putte GV et al (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 20:2307–2314CrossRefPubMed Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Putte GV et al (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 20:2307–2314CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, Sommer A, Lenzen H, Heindel W (2014) Digital mammography screening with photon-counting technique: can a high diagnostic performance be realized at low mean glandular dose? Radiology 271:345–355CrossRefPubMed Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, Sommer A, Lenzen H, Heindel W (2014) Digital mammography screening with photon-counting technique: can a high diagnostic performance be realized at low mean glandular dose? Radiology 271:345–355CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Keavey E, Phelan N, O'Connell AM et al (2012) Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme. Br J Radiol 85:1123–1127PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Keavey E, Phelan N, O'Connell AM et al (2012) Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme. Br J Radiol 85:1123–1127PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Bosmans H, De Hauwere A, Lemmens K et al (2013) Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography. Eur Radiol 23:2891–2898CrossRefPubMed Bosmans H, De Hauwere A, Lemmens K et al (2013) Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography. Eur Radiol 23:2891–2898CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Prummel MV et al (2013) Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. Radiology 268:684–693CrossRefPubMed Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Prummel MV et al (2013) Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. Radiology 268:684–693CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Séradour B, Heid P, Estève J (2014) Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography and screen film in the French national breast screening program. Am J Roentgenol 202:229–236CrossRef Séradour B, Heid P, Estève J (2014) Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography and screen film in the French national breast screening program. Am J Roentgenol 202:229–236CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM et al (2013) Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Med Phys 40:121915-1-10CrossRef Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM et al (2013) Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Med Phys 40:121915-1-10CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A, Yip M, Wells K, Young KC (2012) Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. Med Phys 39:2721–2734CrossRefPubMed Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A, Yip M, Wells K, Young KC (2012) Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. Med Phys 39:2721–2734CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel MN, Looney PT, Young KC, Halling-Brown MD (2014) Automated collection of medical images for research from heterogeneous systems: trials and tribulations. Proc SPIE 90390C:90390C-1-7 Patel MN, Looney PT, Young KC, Halling-Brown MD (2014) Automated collection of medical images for research from heterogeneous systems: trials and tribulations. Proc SPIE 90390C:90390C-1-7
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Warren LM, Green FH, Shrestha L, Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Young KC (2013) Validation of simulation of calcifications for observer studies in digital mammography. Phys Med Biol 58:N217–N228CrossRefPubMed Warren LM, Green FH, Shrestha L, Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Young KC (2013) Validation of simulation of calcifications for observer studies in digital mammography. Phys Med Biol 58:N217–N228CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Warren LM, Dummott L, Wallis MG et al (2014) Characterisation of screen detected and simulated calcification clusters in digital mammograms. IWDM 2014. LNCS 8539:364–371 Warren LM, Dummott L, Wallis MG et al (2014) Characterisation of screen detected and simulated calcification clusters in digital mammograms. IWDM 2014. LNCS 8539:364–371
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Diaz O, Young KC (2014) Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. Med Phys 41:121901-1-14CrossRef Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Diaz O, Young KC (2014) Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. Med Phys 41:121901-1-14CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Mackenzie A, Warren LM, Dance DR et al (2014) Using image simulation to test the effect of detector type on breast cancer detection. Proc SPIE 9037:90370I-1-14 Mackenzie A, Warren LM, Dance DR et al (2014) Using image simulation to test the effect of detector type on breast cancer detection. Proc SPIE 9037:90370I-1-14
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefPubMed Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Oduko JM, Young KC, Burch A (2010) A survey of patient doses from digital Mammography systems in the UK in 2007 to 2009. IWDM 2010, LNCS:365–370 Oduko JM, Young KC, Burch A (2010) A survey of patient doses from digital Mammography systems in the UK in 2007 to 2009. IWDM 2010, LNCS:365–370
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Looney PT, Mackenzie A, Young KC, Halling-Brown MD (2014) MedXViewer: an extensible web-enabled software package for medical imaging. Proc SPIE 9037:90371K-1-7 Looney PT, Mackenzie A, Young KC, Halling-Brown MD (2014) MedXViewer: an extensible web-enabled software package for medical imaging. Proc SPIE 9037:90371K-1-7
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330CrossRefPubMed Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731CrossRefPubMed Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Soh BP, Lee W, McEntee MF et al (2013) Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting. Radiology 268:46–53PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Soh BP, Lee W, McEntee MF et al (2013) Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting. Radiology 268:46–53PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, Berkemeyer S, Hense HW (2014) Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 271:38–44CrossRefPubMed Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, Berkemeyer S, Hense HW (2014) Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 271:38–44CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat European Commission (2006) “European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis,” EUREF, 4th edn. European Commission, Brussels European Commission (2006) “European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis,” EUREF, 4th edn. European Commission, Brussels
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Huda W, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR, Bertrand EA (2006) How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? Acad Radiol 13:1355–1366CrossRefPubMed Huda W, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR, Bertrand EA (2006) How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? Acad Radiol 13:1355–1366CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Saunders RS Jr, Baker JA, Delong DM, Johnson JP, Samei E (2007) Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys 34:3971–3981CrossRefPubMed Saunders RS Jr, Baker JA, Delong DM, Johnson JP, Samei E (2007) Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys 34:3971–3981CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM (2013) If you don't find it often, you often don't find It: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One 8:1–6CrossRef Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM (2013) If you don't find it often, you often don't find It: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One 8:1–6CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors
verfasst von
Alistair Mackenzie
Lucy M. Warren
Matthew G. Wallis
Julie Cooke
Rosalind M. Given-Wilson
David R. Dance
Dev P. Chakraborty
Mark D. Halling-Brown
Padraig T. Looney
Kenneth C. Young
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3885-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

European Radiology 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.