Programa de control de calidad para optimizar dosis-calidad de imagen en un sistema de mamografía digital FFDM con DBT / Quality control program to optimize dose-image quality in a digital mammography system FFDM with DBT

El objetivo de este estudio fue establecer y mantener activo un programa de control de calidad semanal en un sistema de mamografía digital de campo completo (FFDM) con tomosíntesis digital de mama (DBT) para optimizar la relación dosis-calidad de imagen en el tamizaje mamográfico y en el diagnóstico de las patologías de la mama, así como determinar la sensibilidad y especificidad en el periodo 2019-2022. Las imágenes mamográficas fueron obtenidas con el maniquí del Colegio Americano de Radiología (ACR) como parte del programa de control de calidad y con el uso de un dosímetro se determinó la dosis glandular media (DGM). También se midieron otras variables que afectan calidad de imagen y dosis. La imagen optimizada tiene el potencial de reducir la tasa de mortalidad por cáncer de mama debido a que el cáncer de mama es un problema de salud pública en los países en vías de desarrollo. Los resultados generales en el periodo del estudio se ilustran con graficas e intervalos de confianza al 95% (IC, 95%), además los valores numéricos se expresan en términos del error estándar de la media con 95% de confianza. Para mamografía digital de campo completo (FFDM): mAs = 160 ± 3.74, kVp = 28, dosis glandular media (DGM) = 1.69 ± 0.02 mGy, razón señal-ruido (SNR) = 62.20 ± 0.67, razón contraste-ruido (CNR) = 12.16 ± 0.15 y para tomosíntesis digital de mama (DBT): mAs = 61.42 ± 1.14, kVp = 29, dosis glandular media (DGM) = 1.54 ± 0.01 mGy. Los valores de las diferentes variables fueron determinados de acuerdo a la metodología del fabricante (Hologic, 2011). Los valores de la sensibilidad y la especificidad fueron para mamografía digital de campo completo (FFDM) sensibilidad 91% y especificidad 94% y para tomosíntesis digital de mama (DBT) sensibilidad 94% y especificidad 97%. Los resultados de dosis y calidad de imagen en ambas modalidades mamografía digital de campo completo (FFDM) y tomosíntesis digital de mama (DBT) muestran que el programa de control de calidad se mantuvo operativo durante el estudio manteniendo una relación optimizada entre dosis y calidad de imagen

The objective of this study was to establish and maintain active a weekly quality control program in a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to optimize the dose-image quality relationship in mammographic screening and in diagnosis of breast pathologies, as well as determining sensitivity and specificity in the period 2019-2022. Mammographic images were obtained with the American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom as part of the quality control program and the mean glandular dose (DGM) was determined with a dosimeter. Other variables that affect image quality and dose were also measured. Optimized imaging (image quality-dose) has the potential to reduce the breast cancer mortality rate because breast cancer is a public health problem in developing countries. The general results in the study period are illustrated with graphs and 95% confidence intervals (CI, 95%), in addition the numerical values are expressed in terms of the standard error of the mean with 95% confidence, For full field digital mammography (FFDM): mAs = 160.3 ± 3.74, kVp = 28, mean glandular dose (DGM) = 1.69 ± 0.02 mGy, signalto-noise ratio (SNR) = 62.20 ± 0.67, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) = 12.16 ± 0.15 and for tomosynthesis digital breast (DBT): mAs = 61.42 ± 1.14, kVp = 29, mean glandular dose (DGM) = 1.54 ± 0.01 mGy. The values of the different variables were determined according to the manufacturer's methodology. Mammography facility sensitivity and specificity values were determined using pathology results during the study. For FFDM mode they were sensitivity 91% and specificity 94% and for DBT mode they were sensitivity 94% and specificity 97%. The dose and image quality results in both full field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) modalities show that the quality control program remained operational during

Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts

OBJECTIVE: To compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in the detectability of breast cancers in patients with dense breast tissue, and to determine the influencing factors in the detection of breast cancers using the two techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three blinded radiologists independently graded cancer detectability of 300 breast cancers (288 women with dense breasts) on DBT and conventional FFDM images, retrospectively. Hormone status, histologic grade, T stage, and breast cancer subtype were recorded to identify factors affecting cancer detectability. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare cancer detectability by DBT and conventional FFDM. Fisher's exact tests were used to determine differences in cancer characteristics between detectability groups. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine whether the detectability score differed according to cancer characteristics. RESULTS: Forty breast cancers (13.3%) were detectable only with DBT; 191 (63.7%) breast cancers were detected with both FFDM and DBT, and 69 (23%) were not detected with either. Cancer detectability scores were significantly higher for DBT than for conventional FFDM (median score, 6; range, 0–6; p < 0.001). The DBT-only cancer group had more invasive lobular-type breast cancers (22.5%) than the other two groups (i.e., cancer detected on both types of image [both-detected group], 5.2%; cancer not detected on either type of image [both-non-detected group], 7.3%), and less detectability of ductal carcinoma in situ (5% vs. 16.8% [both-detected group] vs. 27.5% [both-non-detected group]). Low-grade cancers were more often detected in the DBT-only group than in the both-detected group (22.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.026). Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2)-negative cancers were more often detected in the DBT-only group than in the both-detected group (92.3% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.004). Cancers surrounded by mostly glandular tissue were detected less often in the DBT only group than in the both-non-detected group (10% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.016). DBT cancer detectability scores were significantly associated with cancer type (p = 0.012), histologic grade (p = 0.013), T and N stage (p = 0.001, p = 0.024), proportion of glandular tissue surrounding lesions (p = 0.013), and lesion type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Invasive lobular, low-grade, or HER-2-negative cancer is more detectable with DBT than with conventional FFDM in patients with dense breasts, but cancers surrounded by mostly glandular tissue might be missed with both techniques.

Diagnostic Value of FFDM Combined with DBT in Breast Diseases / 现代医院

Objective To explore the diagnostic value of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast diseases.Methods 506 patients receiving mammary gland molybdenum target inspection from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 were selected.The images from FFDM and DBT were analyzed, respectively.The breast imaging reports and pathological results were compared to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FFDM, DBT alone and combined use of DBT and FFDM.Results The results of preoperative mammography in the 506 women (bilateral breast) were as follows: FFDM combined with DBT detected 202 benign cases (39.9%) and 304 malignant cases (60.1%);FFDM alone detected 194 benign cases (38.3%) and 312 malignant cases (61.7%);DBT alone detected 187 benign cases (37.0%) and 319 malignant cases (63.0%).Pathologically, 214 benign cases (42.3%) were detected and 292 malignant cases (57.7%).In terms of the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, The combined use of DBT combined with FFDM was the best, followed by FFDM alone and DBT alone.Conclusion The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FFDM combined with DBT for diagnosis are better than those of FFDM alone or DBT alone.

A New Full-Field Digital Mammography System with and without the Use of an Advanced Post-Processing Algorithm: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance

OBJECTIVE: To compare new full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with and without use of an advanced post-processing algorithm to improve image quality, lesion detection, diagnostic performance, and priority rank. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 22-month period, we prospectively enrolled 100 cases of specimen FFDM mammography (Brestige(R)), which was performed alone or in combination with a post-processing algorithm developed by the manufacturer: group A (SMA), specimen mammography without application of "Mammogram enhancement ver. 2.0"; group B (SMB), specimen mammography with application of "Mammogram enhancement ver. 2.0". Two sets of specimen mammographies were randomly reviewed by five experienced radiologists. Image quality, lesion detection, diagnostic performance, and priority rank with regard to image preference were evaluated. RESULTS: Three aspects of image quality (overall quality, contrast, and noise) of the SMB were significantly superior to those of SMA (p < 0.05). SMB was significantly superior to SMA for visualizing calcifications (p < 0.05). Diagnostic performance, as evaluated by cancer score, was similar between SMA and SMB. SMB was preferred to SMA by four of the five reviewers. CONCLUSION: The post-processing algorithm may improve image quality with better image preference in FFDM than without use of the software.

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

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.