Korean J Radiol.  2013 Apr;14(2):164-170. 10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.164.

Comparison of New and Established Full-Field Digital Mammography Systems in Diagnostic Performance

• Ko ES
• Han BK
• Kim SM
• Ko EY
• Jang M
• Lyou CY
• Chang JM
• Moon WK
• Kim RB

• KMID: 1482773
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.164

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To compare the diagnostic performance of new and established full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
During a 15-month period, 1038 asymptomatic women who visited for mammography were prospectively included from two institutions. For women with routine two-view mammograms from established FFDM systems, bilateral mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammograms were repeated using the new FFDM system. One of the four reviewers evaluated two-sets of bilateral MLO mammograms at 4-week intervals by using a five-point score for the probability of malignancy according to a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. The lesion type and breast density were determined by the consensus of two readers at each institution. The dichotomized mammographic results correlated with a final pathologic outcome and follow-up data. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity were compared in general and according to the lesion type and breast density.
RESULTS
Of the 1038 cases, 193 (18.6%) had cancer. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the established system were 0.815, 65.3%, and 90.2%, respectively. Those of the new system were 0.839, 68.4%, and 91.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the AUCs, sensitivities or the specificities in general between new and established systems (Ps = 0.194, 0.590, 0.322, respectively). We found no significant difference in these parameters according to lesion type or breast density.
CONCLUSION
The new FFDM system has a comparable diagnostic performance with established systems.

Keyword

Breast; Digital mammography; FFDM; Analysis; Comparison

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Area Under Curve
Breast Neoplasms/pathology/*radiography
Female
Humans
Mammography/*methods
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
ROC Curve
Radiographic Image Enhancement/*methods
Republic of Korea
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005. 353:1773–1783.

2. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009. 253:353–358.

3. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology. 2009. 251:347–358.

4. 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. 2003. 229:877–884.

5. 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. 2004. 232:197–204.

6. Lazzari B, Belli G, Gori C, Rosselli Del Turco M. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography. Med Phys. 2007. 34:2730–2743.

7. Baldelli P, Phelan N, Egan G. A novel method for contrastto-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors. Eur Radiol. 2009. 19:2275–2285.

8. Baldelli P, Phelan N, Egan G. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Br J Radiol. 2010. 83:290–295.

9. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010. 194:362–369.

10. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs. Annual Report of cancer incidence (2007), cancer prevalence (2007) and survival (1993-2007) in Korea. 2009. Seoul: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs.

11. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007. 188:1147–1150.

12. Flahault A, Cadilhac M, Thomas G. Sample size calculation should be performed for design accuracy in diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005. 58:859–862.

13. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), ultrasound. 2003. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology.

14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977. 33:159–174.

15. Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Rydén S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 1993. 341:973–978.

16. Tabàr L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992. 30:187–210.

17. Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, Jeon YH, Kim JH, Choe YH. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol. 2005. 6:214–220.

18. Bird RE. Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1989. 171:87–90.

19. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000. 92:1081–1087.

20. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002. 179:671–677.

21. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE. Digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004. 42:871–884. vi