Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

PURPOSE: To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This project was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Seven radiologist readers reviewed the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factors that contributed to lesion visibility on both types of images. Two multinomial logistic regression models were used to analyze the combined and condensed visibility ratings assigned by the readers to the paired digital and screen-film images. RESULTS: Readers most frequently attributed differences in DMIST cancer visibility to variations in image contrast--not differences in positioning or compression--between digital and screen-film mammography. The odds of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with dense breasts than for women with nondense breasts, even with the data adjusted for patient age, lesion type, and mammography system (odds ratio, 2.28; P < .0001). The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible at digital and screen-film mammography--were significantly greater for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with the Fischer (P = .0070) and Fuji (P = .0070) devices. CONCLUSION: The significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammography, in women with dense breasts demonstrated in the DMIST was most likely attributable to differences in image contrast, which were most likely due to the inherent system performance improvements that are available with digital mammography. The authors conclude that the DMIST results were attributable primarily to differences in the display and acquisition characteristics of the mammography devices rather than to reader variability.

Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS: Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast calcifications seen on mammography may be associated with benign conditions or malignancies. Accurate characterization of these calcifications is crucial to providing optimal care that may spare women unnecessary biopsies and appropriately allow interval mammography. The purpose of this study is to determine if consensus characterization of calcifications by two breast imaging experts using standardized criteria can establish that follow-up is a safe option. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, our breast imaging database was reviewed and the cases imaged between the years 1999 and 2001 were used to identify patients with calcifications who were recommended for a six-month follow-up or biopsy. All cases had been prospectively assessed by at least two expert breast imagers using standardized features to assess the findings before a recommendation for follow-up or a biopsy was made. A retrospective chart review examining the radiology reports was done to determine the percentage of women from each of the two groups who developed malignancies. RESULTS: Of 744 patients who had mammographically identified clusters of calcifications, 490 clusters (409 single and 81 multiple) were diagnosed as probably-benign, and a short-interval 6-month follow-up was recommended. Of these calcifications followed for three years, only two (0.5%) of the single clusters proved to be malignant, and malignancy was diagnosed at the 12-month follow-up examination. In both cases, the women were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of 254 clusters recommended for biopsy, 242 (215 single and 27 multiple) underwent biopsy. A total of 70 cancers were diagnosed: 54 (77.1%) were DCIS and 16 (22.9%) were primary invasive mammary carcinoma (10 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, 3 cases of invasive lobular carcinoma, 2 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, and one case of invasive mucinous carcinoma with DCIS). Twenty-nine percent of women who had a biopsy performed had calcifications associated with malignancy. In contrast, in the women whose calcifications were followed by mammography, only 0.5% went on to develop malignancies. CONCLUSION: Consensus review of calcifications by two breast imagers using standardized criteria is a safe follow-up option.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer.

A review of the literature on the current applications of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indications, their rationale and their place in diagnosis and management of breast cancer was given. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is developing as a valuable adjunct to mammography and sonography. Its high sensitivity for invasive breast cancer establishes its superiority in evaluation of multifocality/multicentricity, tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, detection of recurrence, and staging. Emerging applications include spectroscopy, usage of new contrast agents, and MRI-guided interventions, including noninvasive treatment of breast cancer. Its potential benefit in screening high-risk women has yet to be established with prospective studies, particularly with regard to false positive results.