Focal Spot, Summer 2003

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/focal_spot_archives/1094/thumbnail.jp

Diagnostic Reference Levels for digital mammography in Australia

Aims: In 3 phases, this thesis explores: radiation doses delivered to women during mammography, methods to estimate mean glandular dose (MGD), and the use of mammographic breast density (MBD) in MGD calculations. Firstly, it examines Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for digital mammography in Australia, with novel focus on the use of compressed breast thickness (CBT) and detector technologies as a guide when determining patient derived DRLs. Secondly, it analyses the agreement between Organ Dose estimated by different digital mammography units and calculated MGD for clinical data. Thirdly, it explores the novel use of MBD in MGD calculations, suggesting a new dose estimation called the actual glandular dose (AGD), and compares MGD to AGD. Methods: DICOM headers were extracted from 52405 anonymised mammograms using 3rd party software. Exposure and QA information were utilised to calculate MGD using 3 methods. LIBRA software was used to estimate MBD for 31097 mammograms. Median, 75th and 95th percentiles were calculated across MGDs obtained for all included data and according to 9 CBT ranges, average population CBT, and for 3 detector technologies. The significance of the differences, correlations, and agreement between MGDs for different CBT ranges, calculation methods, and different density estimation methods were analysed. Conclusions: This thesis have recommended DRLs for mammography in Australia, it shows that MGD is dependent upon CBT and detector technology, hence DRLs were presented as a table for different CBTs and detectors. The work also shows that Organ Doses reported by vendors vary from that calculated using established methodologies. Data produced also show that the use of MGD calculated using standardised glandularities underestimates dose at lower CBTs compared to AGD by up to 10%, hence, underestimating radiation risk. Finally, AGD was proposed; it considers differences in breast composition for individualised radiation-induced risk assessment

A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial

Objectives To describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the two techniques. Methods This RCT, performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical Health Research Ethics. All screening attendees in Bergen were invited to participate, of which 89% (14,274/15,976) concented during the first year, and were randomized to DBT (n = 7155) or DM (n = 7119). Secondary screening outcomes were stratified by mammographic density and compared using two-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, ANOVA, negative binomial regression and tests of proportions (z tests). Results Mean reading time was 1 min 11 s for DBT and 41 s for DM (p < 0.01). Mean time spent at consensus was 3 min 12 s for DBT and 2 min 12 s for DM (p < 0.01), while the rate of cases discussed at consensus was 6.4% and 7.4%, respectively for DBT and DM (p = 0.03). The recall rate was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM (p = 0.03). For women with non-dense breasts, recall rate was 2.2% for DBT versus 3.4% for DM (p = 0.04). The rate did not differ for women with dense breasts (3.6% for both). Mean glandular dose per examination was 2.96 mGy for DBT and 2.95 mGy for DM (p = 0.433). Conclusions Interim analysis of a screening RCT showed that DBT took longer to read than DM, but had significantly lower recall rate than DM. We found no differences in radiation dose between the two techniques. Key Points • In this RCT, DBT was associated with longer interpretation time than DM • Recall rates were lower for DBT than for DM • Mean glandular radiation dose did not differ between DBT and DMpublishedVersio

The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate at which sensitivity digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would become cost-effective compared to digital mammography (DM) in a population breast cancer screening program, given a constant estimate of specificity. METHODS: In a microsimulation model, the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for women aged 50-75 was simulated for three scenarios: DBT for women with dense breasts and DM for women with fatty breasts (scenario 1), DBT for the whole population (scenario 2) or maintaining DM screening (reference). For DM, sensitivity was varied depending on breast density from 65 to 87%, and for DBT from 65 to 100%. The specificity was set at 96.5% for both DM and DBT. Direct medical costs were considered, including screening, biopsy and treatment costs. Scenarios were considered to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below €20,000 per life year gain (LYG). RESULTS: For both scenarios, the ICER was more favourable at increasing DBT sensitivity. Compared with DM screening, 0.8-10.2% more LYGs were found when DBT sensitivity was at least 75% for scenario 1, and 4.7-18.7% when DBT sensitivity was at least 80% for scenario 2. At €96 per DBT, scenario 1 was cost-effective at a DBT sensitivity of at least 90%, and at least 95% for scenario 2. At €80 per DBT, these values decreased to 80% and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DBT is more likely to be a cost-effective alternative to mammography in women with dense breasts. Whether DBT could be cost-effective in a general population highly depends on DBT costs. KEY POINTS: • DBT could be a cost-effective screening modality for women with dense breasts when its sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €96. • DBT has the potential to be cost-effective for screening all women when sensitivity is at least 90% at a maximum cost per screen of €80. • Whether DBT could be used as an alternative to mammography for screening all women is highly dependent on the cost of DBT per screen

Mammography

In this volume, the topics are constructed from a variety of contents: the bases of mammography systems, optimization of screening mammography with reference to evidence-based research, new technologies of image acquisition and its surrounding systems, and case reports with reference to up-to-date multimodality images of breast cancer. Mammography has been lagged in the transition to digital imaging systems because of the necessity of high resolution for diagnosis. However, in the past ten years, technical improvement has resolved the difficulties and boosted new diagnostic systems. We hope that the reader will learn the essentials of mammography and will be forward-looking for the new technologies. We want to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation?to all the co-authors who have contributed their work to this volume