Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effect of Dose Reduction on the Ability of Digital Mammography to Detect Simulated Microcalcifications

Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1.
Fig 2.
Fig 3.
Fig 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ: Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Noel A, Thibault F: Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998, 2004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2008

  12. Streffer C, International Commission on Radiation Protection: The ICRP 2007 recommendations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 127:2–7, 2007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Metz CE: Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298, 1978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Samei E, Saunders Jr, RS, Baker JA, et al: Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology 243:396–404, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC: Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617, 1992

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, et al: Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys 26:1365–1370, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuji Sakai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9203-y

Key words

Navigation