Abstract
The purpose of this article was to report the relationship between radiation dose and the ability of sentence digital mammography to detect microcalcifications. All images were acquired by computed radiography and an anthropomorphic breast phantom. The tube voltage and anode/filter combination used were 28 kVp and Mo/Mo. Simulated microcalcifications with an approximate diameter of 250–350 μm were positioned on the phantom. Groups of six microcalcifications were arranged in one of two patterns, a line cluster 1 cm long or a hexagonal cluster 4 mm wide. One of the six microcalcifications was removed to create a negative control. Each cluster was placed on 25 different points. Four levels of milliampere-second (mAs) values were applied: 100%, 50%, 25%, and 12.5%. Five staff radiologists participated in an observer performance test. All observers used a workstation with a 3-megapixel monochrome LCD monitor. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUC) were used to compare diagnostic performance among the four doses. The overall AUC scores were 0.97 with 100% mAs, 0.93 (n.s.) with 50%, 0.90 (p < 0.05) with 25%, and 0.81 (p < 0.01) with 12.5% mAs. Among the negative series, the percentage of images on which observers were able to identify the removed microcalcification point decreased from 88.8% with 100% mAs to 83.6% (n.s.) with 50%, 74.8% (p < 0.001) with 25%, and 67.2% (p < 0.001) with 12.5% mAs. A certain level of dose reduction in digital mammography may be an option.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783, 2005
Skaane P, Skjennald A: Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—The Oslo II Study. Radiology 232:197–204, 2004
Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A: Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I Study. Radiology 229:877–884, 2003
Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, et al: Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702, 2002
Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR: Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834, 2002
Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, et al: 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 18:183–191, 2008
Sakai S, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, et al: Integration of temporal subtraction and nodule detection system for digital chest radiographs into picture archiving and communication system (PACS): four-year experience. J Digit Imaging 21:91–98, 2008
Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ: Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362, 2005
Noel A, Thibault F: Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998, 2004
Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF, et al: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1276–1299, 2003
Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2008
Streffer C, International Commission on Radiation Protection: The ICRP 2007 recommendations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 127:2–7, 2007
Lai CJ, Shaw CC, Whitman GJ, et al: Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images. Phys Med Biol 51:3901–3919, 2006
American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for determinations of image quality in digital mammography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/image_quality_digital_mammo.aspx. Accessed November 21, 2008
Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, et al: Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 5:1365–1371, 2007
Metz CE: Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298, 1978
Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731, 1992
Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, et al: Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 30:442–448, 2003
Saunders Jr, RS, Baker JA, Delong DM, et al: Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys 34:3971–3981, 2007
Samei E, Saunders Jr, RS, Baker JA, et al: Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology 243:396–404, 2007
Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders R, et al: Effect of dose reduction on the detection of mammographic lesions: a mathematical observer model analysis. Med Phys 34:3385–3398, 2007
Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC: Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617, 1992
Ruschin M, Timberg P, Båth M, et al: Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–407, 2007
Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E, et al: Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 76:478–482, 2003
Hemdal B, Andersson I, Grahn A, et al: Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:383–388, 2005
Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, et al: Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys 26:1365–1370, 1999
Svahn T, Hemdal B, Ruschin M, et al: Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Br J Radiol 80:557–562, 2007
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yakabe, M., Sakai, S., Yabuuchi, H. et al. Effect of Dose Reduction on the Ability of Digital Mammography to Detect Simulated Microcalcifications. J Digit Imaging 23, 520–526 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9203-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9203-y