Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of local contrast optimisation on diagnostic accuracy and perceived suspiciousness of digital screening mammograms. METHODS: Data were collected from a screening region in the Netherlands and consisted of 263 digital screening cases (153 recalled,110 normal). Each case was available twice, once processed with a tissue equalisation (TE) algorithm and once with local contrast optimisation (PV). All cases had digitised previous mammograms. For both algorithms, the probability of malignancy of each finding was scored independently by six screening radiologists. Perceived case suspiciousness was defined as the highest probability of malignancy of all findings of a radiologist within a case. Differences in diagnostic accuracy of the processing algorithms were analysed by comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A(z)). Differences in perceived case suspiciousness were analysed using sign tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in A(z) (TE: 0.909, PV 0.917, P = 0.46). For all radiologists, perceived case suspiciousness using PV was higher than using TE more often than vice versa (ratio: 1.14-2.12). This was significant (P <0.0083) for four radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of local contrast by image processing may increase perceived case suspiciousness, while diagnostic accuracy may remain similar. KEY POINTS: Variations among different image processing algorithms for digital screening mammography are large. Current algorithms still aim for optimal local contrast with a low dynamic range. Although optimisation of contrast may increase sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy is probably unchanged. Increased local contrast may render both normal and abnormal structures more conspicuous.1 april 201

Bias in trials comparing paired continuous tests can cause researchers to choose the wrong screening modality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two continuous screening tests, a common approach is to test the difference between the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. After study participants are screened with both screening tests, the disease status is determined as accurately as possible, either by an invasive, sensitive and specific secondary test, or by a less invasive, but less sensitive approach. For most participants, disease status is approximated through the less sensitive approach. The invasive test must be limited to the fraction of the participants whose results on either or both screening tests exceed a threshold of suspicion, or who develop signs and symptoms of the disease after the initial screening tests.</p> <p>The limitations of this study design lead to a bias in the ROC curves we call <it>paired screening trial bias</it>. This bias reflects the synergistic effects of inappropriate reference standard bias, differential verification bias, and partial verification bias. The absence of a gold reference standard leads to inappropriate reference standard bias. When different reference standards are used to ascertain disease status, it creates differential verification bias. When only suspicious screening test scores trigger a sensitive and specific secondary test, the result is a form of partial verification bias.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For paired screening tests with bivariate normally distributed scores, we give formulae and programs to quantify the effect of <it>paired screening trial bias </it>on a paired comparison of area under the curves. We fix the prevalence of disease, and the chance a diseased subject manifests signs and symptoms. We derive the formulas for true sensitivity and specificity, and those for the sensitivity and specificity observed by the study investigator.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The observed area under the ROC curves is quite different from the true area under the ROC curves. The typical direction of the bias is a strong inflation in sensitivity, paired with a concomitant slight deflation of specificity.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In paired trials of screening tests, when area under the ROC curve is used as the metric, bias may lead researchers to make the wrong decision as to which screening test is better.</p

Breast cancer detection: radiologists’ performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound

ObjectiveRadiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus automated whole-breast ultrasound (AWBU) was compared with mammography alone.MethodsScreenings for non-palpable breast malignancies in women with radiographically dense breasts with contemporaneous mammograms and AWBU were reviewed by 12 radiologists blinded to the diagnoses; half the studies were abnormal. Readers first reviewed the 102 mammograms. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) and Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) likelihood ratings were recorded with location information for identified abnormalities. Readers then reviewed the mammograms and AWBU with knowledge of previous mammogram-only evaluation. We compared reader performance across screening techniques using absolute callback, areas under the curve (AUC), and figure of merit (FOM).ResultsTrue positivity of cancer detection increased 63%, with only a 4% decrease in true negativity. Reader-averaged AUC was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.808 versus 0.701) and likelihood scores (0.810 versus 0.703). Similarly, FOM was higher for mammography plus AWBU compared with mammography alone by BIRADS (0.786 versus 0.613) and likelihood scores (0.791 versus 0.614).ConclusionAdding AWBU to mammography improved callback rates, accuracy of breast cancer detection, and confidence in callbacks for dense-breasted women

Assessment of 1183 screen-detected, category 3B, circumscribed masses by cytology and core biopsy with long-term follow up data

Discrete masses are commonly detected during mammographic screening and most such lesions are benign. For lesions without pathognomonically benign imaging features that are still regarded likely to be non-malignant (Tabar grade 3) reliable biopsy results would be a clinically useful alternative to mammographic surveillance. Appropriate institutional guidelines for ethical research were followed. Between Jan 1996–Dec 2005 grade 3B discrete masses detected in the setting of a large, population based, breast cancer screening programme are included. Patient demographics, fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), core and surgical biopsy results are tabulated. The final pathology of excised lesions was obtained. Information regarding interval cancers was obtained from the State Cancer Registry records and also through long term follow-up of clients in subsequent rounds of screening. A total of 1183 lesions, mean diameter of 13.3 mm (±8.3 mm) and mean client age of 55.1 years (±8.8 years) are included. After diagnostic work up, 98 lesions (8.3%) were malignant, 1083 were non-malignant and a final histologic diagnosis was not established in two lesions. In the 27 months after assessment, no interval cancers were attributable to these lesions and during a mean follow up of 54.5 months, available in 84.9% of eligible women, only one cancer has developed in the same quadrant as the original lesion, although the two processes are believed to be unrelated. FNAB performed in 1149 cases was definitive in 80.5% cases (882 benign, 43 malignant) with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (880 of 882) and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 95.2% (40 of 42, both intraductal papillomas). Core biopsy was performed in 178 lesions, mostly for indefinite cytology. Core biopsy was definitive in 79.8% cases (57% benign 22% malignant) with a PPV of 100% and NPV of 99.0%. In experienced hands FNAB is an accurate first line diagnostic modality for the assessment of 3B screen-detected discrete masses, providing definitive results in 80.5% of cases. When used as a second line modality, core biopsy had a similarly high rate of definitive diagnosis at 79.8%. The stepwise approach to the use of FNAB and core biopsy would reduce substantially the proportion of cases requiring surgical diagnostic biopsy. Given the low probability of malignancy and the imperative to limit the morbidity associated with cancer screening, the demonstration of the reliability of FNAB as a minimally invasive but highly accurate test for this particular subset of screen-detected lesions has significant clinical utility

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Is overdiagnosis an issue for radiologists?

Overdiagnosis is diagnosis of cancers that would not present within the life of the patient and is one of the downsides of screening. This applies to low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ and some small grade 1 invasive cancers. Radiologists are responsible for cancer diagnosis, but at the time of diagnosis they cannot determine whether a particular low-grade diagnosis is one to which the definition of overdiagnosis applies. Overdiagnosis is likely to be driven by technological developments, including digital mammography, computer-aided detection and improved biopsy techniques. It is also driven by the patient's fear that cancer will be missed and the doctor's fear of litigation. It is therefore an issue of importance for radiologists, presenting them with difficult fine-tuned decisions in every assessment clinic that are ultimately counted later by those who evaluate their screening