Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 8/2014

01.08.2014 | Breast

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

verfasst von: Lore Timmermans, An De Hauwere, Klaus Bacher, Hilde Bosmans, Kim Lemmens, Luc Bleyen, Erik Van Limbergen, Patrick Martens, Andre Van Steen, Griet Mortier, Koen Van Herck, Hubert Thierens

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 8/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish Breast Screening Programme. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018PubMedCrossRef Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish Breast Screening Programme. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Dimakopoulou AD, Tsalafoutas IA, Georgiou EK, Yakoumakis EN (2006) Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography. Brit J Radiol 79:123–129PubMedCrossRef Dimakopoulou AD, Tsalafoutas IA, Georgiou EK, Yakoumakis EN (2006) Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography. Brit J Radiol 79:123–129PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities, Luxemburg Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities, Luxemburg
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Young KC (2006) Recent developments in digital mammography. Imaging 18:68–74CrossRef Young KC (2006) Recent developments in digital mammography. Imaging 18:68–74CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Yaffe MJ (2001) Digital mammography-detector considerations and new applications. Nucl Instrum Methods 471:6–11CrossRef Yaffe MJ (2001) Digital mammography-detector considerations and new applications. Nucl Instrum Methods 471:6–11CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M et al (2009) Physical and psychological characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography. Med Phys 36:5139–5148PubMedCrossRef Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Bertolini M et al (2009) Physical and psychological characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography. Med Phys 36:5139–5148PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N et al (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 70:539–548PubMedCrossRef Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N et al (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 70:539–548PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyer B, Canale S, Arfi-Rouche J, Monzani Q, Khaled W, Balleyguier C (2013) Variability and errors when applying the BIRADS mammography classification. Eur J Radiol 82:388–397PubMedCrossRef Boyer B, Canale S, Arfi-Rouche J, Monzani Q, Khaled W, Balleyguier C (2013) Variability and errors when applying the BIRADS mammography classification. Eur J Radiol 82:388–397PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Dance DR, Skinnert CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRef Dance DR, Skinnert CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Physics Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Law J, Faulkner K (2002) Two-view screening and extending the age range: the balance of benefit and risk. Brit J Radiol 75:889–894PubMedCrossRef Law J, Faulkner K (2002) Two-view screening and extending the age range: the balance of benefit and risk. Brit J Radiol 75:889–894PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat NHSBSP Publication No 54 (2003) Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield NHSBSP Publication No 54 (2003) Review of radiation risk in breast screening. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW (2006) Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Brit J Radiol 79:195–200PubMedCrossRef Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW (2006) Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Brit J Radiol 79:195–200PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Heyes GJ, Mill AJ (2004) The neoplastic transformation potential of mammography X rays and atomic bomb spectrum radiation. Radiat Res 162:120–127PubMedCrossRef Heyes GJ, Mill AJ (2004) The neoplastic transformation potential of mammography X rays and atomic bomb spectrum radiation. Radiat Res 162:120–127PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW (2009) Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses. J Radiol Prot 29:A123–A132PubMedCrossRef Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW (2009) Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses. J Radiol Prot 29:A123–A132PubMedCrossRef
20.
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 programme: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef 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 programme: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677PubMedCrossRef Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bluekens AMJ, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–2073PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bluekens AMJ, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–2073PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Bluekens AMJ, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJM, den Heeten G (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef Bluekens AMJ, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJM, den Heeten G (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31–39PubMedCrossRef Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31–39PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G et al (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening programme lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 20:2307–2314PubMedCrossRef Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G et al (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening programme lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 20:2307–2314PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Silva IMD (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK Breast Screening Programme and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Silva IMD (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK Breast Screening Programme and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M, Miller D (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening programme. Eur J Radiol 64:419–425PubMedCrossRef Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M, Miller D (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening programme. Eur J Radiol 64:419–425PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:860–866CrossRef Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:860–866CrossRef
31.
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 18:183–191PubMedCrossRef 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 18:183–191PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, Deurenberg J, Beekman M, Bartels-Kortland A (2008) Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening programme. Eur Radiol Suppl 1:151–152 Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, Deurenberg J, Beekman M, Bartels-Kortland A (2008) Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening programme. Eur Radiol Suppl 1:151–152
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Dershaw DD (2006) Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 12:99–102PubMedCrossRef Dershaw DD (2006) Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 12:99–102PubMedCrossRef
34.
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 10:2891–2898CrossRef 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 10:2891–2898CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening programme. Acta Radiol 51:491–497PubMedCrossRef Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening programme. Acta Radiol 51:491–497PubMedCrossRef
38.
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 programme. Radiology 268:684–693PubMedCrossRef 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 programme. Radiology 268:684–693PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, Frantzen JO (2006) Full field digital mammography screening in the population-based screening programme in North-Norway: preliminary results. Radiology 241:392CrossRef Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, Frantzen JO (2006) Full field digital mammography screening in the population-based screening programme in North-Norway: preliminary results. Radiology 241:392CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942PubMedCrossRef Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat De Hauwere A, Thierens H (2012) Impact of digitalization of mammographic units on average glandular doses in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Breast Imaging—Proceedings 11th International Workshop, IWDM 2012, Philadelphia, pp 410–417 De Hauwere A, Thierens H (2012) Impact of digitalization of mammographic units on average glandular doses in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Breast Imaging—Proceedings 11th International Workshop, IWDM 2012, Philadelphia, pp 410–417
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44PubMedCrossRef Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44PubMedCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Gennaro G, Di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566PubMedCrossRef Gennaro G, Di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Law J, Faulkner K (2001) Cancers detected and induced, and associated risk and benefit, in a breast screening programme. Brit J Radiol 74:1121–1127PubMedCrossRef Law J, Faulkner K (2001) Cancers detected and induced, and associated risk and benefit, in a breast screening programme. Brit J Radiol 74:1121–1127PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98–105PubMedCrossRef Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98–105PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme
verfasst von
Lore Timmermans
An De Hauwere
Klaus Bacher
Hilde Bosmans
Kim Lemmens
Luc Bleyen
Erik Van Limbergen
Patrick Martens
Andre Van Steen
Griet Mortier
Koen Van Herck
Hubert Thierens
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3169-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2014

European Radiology 8/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

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