Evaluation of single-view contrast-enhanced mammography as novel reading strategy: a non-inferiority feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend screening of high-risk women using breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has matured, providing excellent diagnostic accuracy. To lower total radiation dose, evaluation of single-view (1 V) CEM exams might be considered instead of double-view (2 V) readings as an alternative reading strategy in women who cannot undergo MRI. METHODS: This retrospective non-inferiority feasibility study evaluates whether the use of 1 V results in an acceptable sensitivity for detecting breast cancer (non-inferiority margin, - 10%). CEM images from May 2013 to December 2017 were included. 1 V readings were performed by consensus opinion of three radiologists, followed by 2 V readings being performed after 6 weeks. Cases were considered "malignant" if the final BI-RADS score was ≥ 4, enabling calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Histopathological results or follow-up served as a gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 368 cases were evaluated. Mean follow-up for benign or negative cases was 20.9 months. Sensitivity decreased by 9.6% from 92.9 to 83.3% when only 1 V was used for evaluation (p < 0.001). The lower limit of the 90% confidence interval around the difference in sensitivity between 1 V and 2 V readings was - 15% and lies below the predefined non-inferiority margin of - 10%. Hence, non-inferiority of 1 V to 2 V reading cannot be concluded. AUC for 1 V was significantly lower, 0.861 versus 0.899 for 2 V (p = 0.0174). CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of 1 V evaluations as an alternative reading strategy to standard 2 V evaluations could not be concluded. 1 V evaluations had lower diagnostic performance compared with 2 V evaluations. KEY POINTS: • To lower radiation exposure used in contrast-enhanced mammography, we studied a hypothetical alternative strategy: single-view readings (1 V) versus (standard) double-view readings (2 V). • Based on our predefined margin of - 10%, non-inferiority of 1 V could not be concluded. • 1 V evaluation is not recommended as an alternative reading strategy to lower CEM-related radiation exposure.

Evaluation of pressure-controlled mammography compression paddles with respect to force-controlled compression paddles in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To reduce pain and discomfort associated with breast compression in mammography, a pressure-controlled compression paddle was recently introduced. The objective was to evaluate the pressure-controlled paddle by comparing it to the standard force-controlled paddle. METHODS: Differences of compressed breast thickness (CBT), compression force, compression pressure, and average glandular dose (AGD) between annual follow-up full-field digital mammography exams of 3188 patients were retrospectively examined. Two groups were compared: (1) force-force group (FF-group), both examinations were performed with the force-controlled paddle, and (2) force-pressure group (FP-group), only the follow-up examination was performed with the pressure-controlled paddle. In an additional group of patients, pain scores on a scale of 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst pain imaginable) were evaluated prospectively (n = 343) who were randomly assigned to either paddle. RESULTS: Median differences between follow-up exams in CBT, compression force, compression pressure, and AGD were for the FF- and FP-group respectively - 1.0 vs 0.0 mm (p < 0.001); 0.0 vs - 1.0 daN (p = 0.002); - 1.0 vs - 0.5 kPa (p = 0.005); and 0.05 vs - 0.02 mGy (p < 0.001). These differences were, although statistically significant, clinically non-relevant (defined as ΔCBT > ± 2 mm; Δforce > ± 2 daN; Δpressure > ± 1 kPa and ΔAGD > ± 0.1 mGy). The subanalysis dividing CBT into five categories revealed similar results. The median [interquartile range] pain scores were 6 [3, 7] and 5 [3, 7] for the force-controlled and pressure-controlled paddle, respectively, which was not significantly different (p = 0.113). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no clinically relevant differences in CBT, compression force, compression pressure, AGD, or pain score between the force- and pressure-controlled paddle. As such, we found no basis for preferring one paddle over the other. KEY POINTS: • The pressure-controlled paddle did not show any clinically relevant changes in breast compression parameters compared to the force-controlled paddle. • The pressure-controlled paddle did not lead to significant reduction in pain scores indicated by the patients compared to the force-controlled paddle. • A large variation in compression force and compression pressure was observed in mammography exams for the both the force- and pressure-controlled compression paddle.

Quantification of enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography using a custom-made quantifier tool (I-STRIP): A proof-of-concept study.

PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is diagnostically superior to full-field digital mammography. An important improvement for CESM would be the ability to quantify enhancement. In this proof-of-concept study we present a method for quantifying CESM enhancement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We developed a custom-made quantifier tool (I-STRIP) containing five chambers, each filled with a different iodine mass thickness (IMT). CESM grey values of the recombined image (CGV) in the I-STRIP were used to quantify breast IMT. We evaluated the I-STRIP's accuracy using a dedicated breast phantom containing chambers with known IMT's. Furthermore, we tested the effect of the I-STRIP on image quality and clinical use in five patients. Retrospectively, we studied whether current CESM protocols could distinguish between malignant and benign lesions in terms of CGV. RESULTS: Phantom experiments showed that quantification was independent of chamber height and size, phantom thickness and I-STRIP position for different IMT's (1.5, 3.0 and 7.5 mg l/cm2). Near the phantom's periphery accuracy was found to be lower due to the breast-within-breast artifact. In the clinical setting (n = 5), workflow and image quality were not influenced by the I-STRIP. The mean IMT of these invasive breast cancers was 2.1 mg l/cm2 (range 1.3-3.4 mg l/cm2). Malignant lesions showed significantly higher CGV's than benign lesions (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: We showed in both phantom and clinical experiments that CESM quantification is feasible, without influencing workflow or image quality. The current CESM imaging protocol seems to be able to distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions in terms of CGV.

On the Reproducibility of Inversion Recovery Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging in Cerebrovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging can measure both microvascular and parenchymal abnormalities simultaneously. The contamination of CSF signal can be suppressed using inversion recovery preparation. The clinical feasibility of inversion recovery-intravoxel incoherent motion imaging was investigated in patients with cerebrovascular disease by studying its reproducibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with cerebrovascular disease (66 ± 8 years of age) underwent inversion recovery-intravoxel incoherent motion imaging twice. The reproducibility of the perfusion volume fraction and parenchymal diffusivity was calculated with the coefficient of variation, intraclass correlation coefficient, and the repeatability coefficient. ROIs included the normal-appearing white matter, cortex, deep gray matter, white matter hyperintensities, and vascular lesions. RESULTS: Values for the perfusion volume fraction ranged from 2.42 to 3.97 ×10-2 and for parenchymal diffusivity from 7.20 to 9.11 × 10-4 mm2/s, with higher values found in the white matter hyperintensities and vascular lesions. Coefficients of variation were <3.70% in normal-appearing tissue and <9.15% for lesions. Intraclass correlation coefficients were good to excellent, showing values ranging from 0.82 to 0.99 in all ROIs, except the deep gray matter and cortex, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.66 and 0.54, respectively. The repeatability coefficients ranged from 0.15 to 0.96 × 10-2 and 0.10 to 0.37 × 10-4 mm2/s for perfusion volume fraction and parenchymal diffusivity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Good reproducibility of inversion recovery-intravoxel incoherent motion imaging was observed with low coefficients of variation and high intraclass correlation coefficients in normal-appearing tissue and lesion areas in cerebrovascular disease. Good reproducibility of inversion recovery-intravoxel incoherent motion imaging in cerebrovascular disease is feasible in monitoring disease progression or treatment responses in the clinic.

DOSE EVALUATION FOR DIGITAL X-RAY IMAGING OF PREMATURE NEONATES.

X-ray radiography is a commonly used diagnostic method for premature neonates. However, because of higher radiosensitivity and young age, premature neonates are more sensitive to the detrimental effects of ionising radiation. Therefore, it is important to monitor and optimise radiation doses at the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The number of x-ray examinations, dose-area product (DAP) and effective doses are evaluated for three Dutch NICUs using digital flat panel detectors. Thorax, thorax-abdomen and abdomen protocols are included in this study. Median number of examinations is equal to 1 for all three hospitals. Median DAP ranges between 0.05 and 1.02 µGy m2 for different examination types and different weight categories. These examinations result in mean effective doses between 4 ± 4 and 30 ± 10 µSv per examination. Substantial differences in protocols and doses can be observed between hospitals. This emphasises the need for up-to-date reference levels formulated specifically for premature neonates.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a reliable problem solving tool in the work-up of women recalled from breast cancer screening. We evaluated additional findings caused by CESM alone and outweighed them against the disadvantages of this technique. METHODS: From December 2012 to December 2015, all women recalled from screening who underwent CESM were considered for this study. Radiation exposure and number of adverse contrast reactions were analysed. An experienced breast radiologist reviewed all exams and identified cases with lesions detected by CESM alone and scored their conspicuity. From these cases, data on breast density and final diagnosis were collected. For malignant cases, tumour grade and receptor characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: During this study, 839 women underwent CESM after a screening recall, in which five minor adverse contrast reactions were observed. Median radiation dose per exam was 6.0mGy (0.9-23.4mGy). Seventy CESM-only lesions were detected in 65 patients. Of these 70 lesions, 54.3% proved to be malignant, most commonly invasive ductal carcinomas. The remaining CESM-only lesions were benign, predominantly fibroadenomas. No complications were observed during biopsy of these lesions. Retrospectively, the majority of the lesions were either occult or a 'minimal sign' on low-energy CESM images or the screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Using CESM as a work-up tool for women recalled from screening carries low risk for the patient, while additionally detected tumour foci might hold important clinical implications which need to be further studied in large, randomized controlled trials.

Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.

For the evaluation of the average glandular dose (AGD) in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) phantoms simulating standard model breasts are used. These phantoms consist of slabs of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) or a combination of PMMA and polyethylene (PE). In the last decades the automatic exposure control (AEC) increased in complexity and became more sensitive to (local) differences in breast composition. The question is how well the AGD estimated using these simple dosimetry phantoms agrees with the average patient AGD. In this study the AGDs for both dosimetry phantoms and for patients have been evaluated for 5 different x-ray systems in DM and DBT modes. It was found that the ratios between patient and phantom AGD did not differ considerably using both dosimetry phantoms. These ratios averaged over all breast thicknesses were 1.14 and 1.15 for the PMMA and PMMA-PE dosimetry phantoms respectively in DM mode and 1.00 and 1.02 in the DBT mode. These ratios were deemed to be sufficiently close to unity to be suitable for dosimetry evaluation in quality control procedures. However care should be taken when comparing systems for DM and DBT since depending on the AEC operation, ratios for particular breast thicknesses may differ substantially (0.83-1.96). Although the predictions of both phantoms are similar we advise the use of PMMA + PE slabs for both DM and DBT to harmonize dosimetry protocols and avoid any potential issues with the use of spacers with the PMMA phantoms.

Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) examination results in a low-energy (LE) and contrast-enhanced image. The LE appears similar to a full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). Our aim was to evaluate LE CESM image quality by comparing it to FFDM using criteria defined by the European Reference Organization for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF). METHODS: A total of 147 cases with both FFDM and LE images were independently scored by two experienced radiologists using these (20) EUREF criteria. Contrast detail measurements were performed using a dedicated phantom. Differences in image quality scores, average glandular dose, and contrast detail measurements between LE and FFDM were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: No significant differences in image quality scores were observed between LE and FFDM images for 17 out of 20 criteria. LE scored significantly lower on one criterion regarding the sharpness of the pectoral muscle (p < 0.001), and significantly better on two criteria on the visualization of micro-calcifications (p = 0.02 and p = 0.034). Dose and contrast detail measurements did not reveal any physical explanation for these observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. From this perspective FFDM can be omitted in patients with an indication for CESM. KEY POINTS: • Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. • Micro-calcifications are significantly more visible on LE CESM than on FFDM. • There is no physical explanation for this improved visibility of micro-calcifications. • There is no need for an extra FFDM when CESM is indicated.