The importance of early detection of calcifications associated with breast cancer in screening.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess how often women with undetected calcifications in prior screening mammograms are subsequently diagnosed with invasive cancer. METHODS: From a screening cohort of 63,895 women, exams were collected from 59,690 women without any abnormalities, 744 women with a screen-detected cancer and a prior negative exam, 781 women with a false positive exam based on calcifications, and 413 women with an interval cancer. A radiologist identified cancer-related calcifications, selected by a computer-aided detection system, on mammograms taken prior to screen-detected or interval cancer diagnoses. Using this ground truth and the pathology reports, the sensitivity for calcification detection and the proportion of lesions with visible calcifications that developed into invasive cancer were determined. RESULTS: The screening sensitivity for calcifications was 45.5%, at a specificity of 99.5%. A total of 68.4% (n = 177) of cancer-related calcifications that could have been detected earlier were associated with invasive cancer when diagnosed. CONCLUSIONS: Screening sensitivity for detection of malignant calcifications is low. Improving the detection of these early signs of cancer is important, because the majority of lesions with detectable calcifications that are not recalled immediately but detected as interval cancer or in the next screening round are invasive at the time of diagnosis.

Pressure-standardised mammography does not affect visibility, contrast and sharpness of stable lesions.

INTRODUCTION: A recent technological development allows pressure-standardised mammography by personalizing the compression force to the breast size and firmness. The technique has been shown to reduce pain and compression variability between consecutive exams, but also results in a slightly thicker compressed breast during exposure. This raises the question whether visibility, contrast and sharpness of lesions are affected? METHODS: Four experienced radiologists compared 188 stable lesions and structures including (clusters of) calcifications, (oil) cysts and lymph nodes that were visible in mammograms obtained in 2009 with a pain-tolerance limited 18 daN target force compression protocol, and in 2014/2015 obtained with a 10kPa (75mmHg) pressure-standardised compression protocol. Observers were blinded for all DICOM metadata and rated which of the randomly ordered, side by side presented images had better lesion visibility, contrast and sharpness, or whether they saw no difference. They also indicated which overall image they preferred, if any, and whether the non-preferred image was still adequate. Statistical non-inferiority is concluded when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the 4-rater averaged 'new protocol better' proportions exceed the non-inferiority limit of 0.463. RESULTS: In 2014/2015, the compressions were significantly milder, with on average 17% (mediolateral oblique) to 29% (craniocaudal) lower forces. Breasts remained on average 2.4% (1.4mm) thicker. Dose was significantly lower (6.5%), which is explained by glandular atrophy. The 95% confidence interval lower limits are 0.479 for visibility, 0.473 for contrast, 0.488 for sharpness and 0.486 for preference, all exceeding the non-inferiority limit. Of the 60 non-preferred mammograms, multiple observers found only five to be inadequate: 4 obtained with the force protocol and 1 with the pressure protocol. CONCLUSION: Pain-reduced mammography with 10kPa pressure-standardised compression has non-inferior visibility, contrast and sharpness for stable lesions compared to pain-tolerance limited 18daN target force compression.

Can the non-pre-whitening model observer, including aspects of the human visual system, predict human observer performance in mammography?

PURPOSE: In mammography, images are processed prior to display. Current methodologies based on physical image quality measurements are however not designed for the evaluation of processed images. Model observers (MO) might be suitable for this evaluation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the non-pre-whitening (NPW) MO can be used to predict human observer performance in mammography-like images by including different aspects of the human visual system (HVS). METHODS: The correlation between human and NPW MO performance has been investigated for the detection of disk shaped objects in simulated white noise (WN) and clustered lumpy backgrounds (CLB), representing quantum noise limited and mammography-like images respectively. The images were scored by the MO and five human observers in a 2-alternative forced choice experiment. RESULTS: For WN images it was found that the log likelihood ratio (RLR2), which expresses the goodness of fit, was highest (0.44) for the NPW MO without addition of HVS aspects. For CLB the RLR2 improved from 0.46 to 0.65 with addition of HVS aspects. The correlation was affected by object size and background. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that by including aspects of the HVS, the performance of the NPW MO can be improved to better predict human observer performance. This demonstrates that the NPW MO has potential for image quality assessment. However, due to the dependencies found in the correlation, the NPW MO can only be used for image quality assessment for a limited range of object sizes and background variability.

The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has rapidly increased over time. The malignant potential of DCIS is dependent on its differentiation grade. METHODS: Our aim is to determine the distribution of different grades of DCIS among women screened in the mass screening programme, and women not screened in the mass screening programme, and to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis by grade of DCIS. We retrospectively included a population-based sample of 4232 women with a diagnosis of DCIS in the years 2007-2009 from the Nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology in the Netherlands. Excluded were women with concurrent invasive breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ and no DCIS, women recently treated for invasive breast cancer, no grade mentioned in the record, inconclusive record on invasion, and prevalent DCIS. The screening status was obtained via the screening organisations. The distribution of grades was incorporated in the well-established and validated microsimulation model MISCAN. RESULTS: Overall, 17.7 % of DCIS were low grade, 31.4 % intermediate grade, and 50.9 % high grade. This distribution did not differ by screening status, but did vary by age. Older women were more likely to have low-grade DCIS than younger women. Overdiagnosis as a proportion of all cancers in women of the screening age was 61 % for low-grade, 57 % for intermediate-grade, 45 % for high-grade DCIS. For women age 50-60 years with a high-grade DCIS this overdiagnosis rate was 21-29 %, compared to 50-66 % in women age 60-75 years with high-grade DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst the rapidly increasing numbers of DCIS diagnosed each year is a significant number of overdiagnosed cases. Tailoring treatment to the probability of progression is the next step to preventing overtreatment. The basis of this tailoring could be DCIS grade and age.

SIMULATING LOCAL DENSE AREAS USING PMMA TO ASSESS AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.

Current digital mammography (DM) X-ray systems are equipped with advanced automatic exposure control (AEC) systems, which determine the exposure factors depending on breast composition. In the supplement of the European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, a phantom-based test is included to evaluate the AEC response to local dense areas in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This study evaluates the proposed test in terms of SNR and dose for four DM systems. The glandular fraction represented by the local dense area was assessed by analytic calculations. It was found that the proposed test simulates adipose to fully glandular breast compositions in attenuation. The doses associated with the phantoms were found to match well with the patient dose distribution. In conclusion, after some small adaptations, the test is valuable for the assessment of the AEC performance in terms of both SNR and dose.

Force balancing in mammographic compression.

PURPOSE: In mammography, the height of the image receptor is adjusted to the patient before compressing the breast. An inadequate height setting can result in an imbalance between the forces applied by the image receptor and the paddle, causing the clamped breast to be pushed up or down relative to the body during compression. This leads to unnecessary stretching of the skin and other tissues around the breast, which can make the imaging procedure more painful for the patient. The goal of this study was to implement a method to measure and minimize the force imbalance, and to assess its feasibility as an objective and reproducible method of setting the image receptor height. METHODS: A trial was conducted consisting of 13 craniocaudal mammographic compressions on a silicone breast phantom, each with the image receptor positioned at a different height. The image receptor height was varied over a range of 12 cm. In each compression, the force exerted by the compression paddle was increased up to 140 N in steps of 10 N. In addition to the paddle force, the authors measured the force exerted by the image receptor and the reaction force exerted on the patient body by the ground. The trial was repeated 8 times, with the phantom remounted at a slightly different orientation and position between the trials. RESULTS: For a given paddle force, the obtained results showed that there is always exactly one image receptor height that leads to a balance of the forces on the breast. For the breast phantom, deviating from this specific height increased the force imbalance by 9.4 ± 1.9 N/cm (6.7%) for 140 N paddle force, and by 7.1 ± 1.6 N/cm (17.8%) for 40 N paddle force. The results also show that in situations where the force exerted by the image receptor is not measured, the craniocaudal force imbalance can still be determined by positioning the patient on a weighing scale and observing the changes in displayed weight during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In mammographic breast compression, even small changes in the image receptor height can lead to a severe imbalance of the applied forces. This may make the procedure more painful than necessary and, in case the image receptor is set too low, may lead to image quality issues and increased radiation dose due to undercompression. In practice, these effects can be reduced by monitoring the force imbalance and actively adjusting the position of the image receptor throughout the compression.

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.

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the characteristics of low suspicion lesions (BI-RADS 0) at blinded and non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms and to determine the potential effect of arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader on screening outcome. METHODS: We included a series of 84,927 consecutive digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded (43,184 screens) or non-blinded (41,743 screens) fashion, between July 2009 and July 2011. Discrepant readings were routinely recalled for further evaluation. During 2 years of follow-up, radiology, surgical and pathology reports were collected of all recalled women. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls (only one radiologist assigning a BI-RADS 0 score) was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist. RESULTS: At blinded and non-blinded double reading, 32.0% and 32.5% of recalls were assigned BI-RADS 0 with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 7.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Compared to non-blinded double reading, BI-RADS 0 recalls at blinded double reading showed a higher discrepancy rate (9.0 versus 4.3 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (10.1 versus 8.4 per 1000 screens, p = 0.012). Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls would have significantly lowered recall rate (from 3.4% to 2.8% at blinded double reading, p < 0.001, and from 2.8% to 2.5% at non-blinded double reading, p = 0.008), without a decrease in cancer detection rate (from 7.5‰ to 7.3‰, p = 0.751, and from 6.6‰ to 6.5‰, p = 0.832, respectively) and program sensitivity (from 83.2% to 81.2%, p = 0.453, and from 76.0% to 74.6%, p = 0.667, respectively). Arbitration would have significantly increased the PPV at blinded double reading (from 22.3% to 26.3%, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: We advise arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls, at (non-)blinded double reading of screening mammograms, to reduce recall rates and improve the PPV of recall at blinded double reading.

The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential of low-dose images in digital mammography by analysing the effect of substantial dose reduction in craniocaudal (CC) views on clinical performance. METHODS: At routine mammography, additional CC views were obtained with about 10% of the standard dose. Five radiologists retrospectively read the standard [mediolateral oblique (MLO) + CC] and combination low-dose mammograms (standard MLO + low-dose CC). If present, lesion type, conspicuity and suggested work-up were recorded. Final diagnoses were made by histology or follow up. A t-test or χ(2) test was used to compare results. RESULTS: 421 cases were included, presenting 5 malignancies, 66 benign lesions and multiple non-specific radiologic features. Using MLO with low-dose CC, all lesions were detected by at least one reader, but altogether less often than with standard mammography (sensitivity, 73.9% vs 81.5%). Missed lesions concerned all types. Lesions detected with both protocols were described similarly (p = 0.084) with comparable work-up recommendations (p = 0.658). CONCLUSION: Mammography with ultra-low-dose CC images particularly influences detection. While sensitivity decreased, specificity was unaffected. In this proof-of-concept study a lower limit was to be determined that is not intended nor applicable for clinical practice. This should facilitate further research in optimization of a low-dose approach, which has potential in a relatively young and largely asymptomatic population. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Tungsten/silver-acquired mammography images might facilitate substantial dose reduction. Ultra-low-dose CC images reduce sensitivity, but not specificity. Low-dose images have potential in a largely young and asymptomatic population; a baseline is set for further research in optimization of a low-dose approach.

Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation has been reported at single reading. However, screening results of pairs of screening radiologists have not yet been published. We determined variations in screening performances among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. METHODS: We included pairs of screening radiologists with at least 7,500 screening examinations per pair, obtained between 1997 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, breast imaging reports, surgical reports and pathology results were collected of all referred women and interval cancers. Referral rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value and sensitivity were calculated for each pair. RESULTS: A total of 310,906 screening mammograms, read by 26 pairs of screening radiologists, were included for analysis. The referral rate ranged from 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.8 %-1.2 %) to 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.3 %-1.8 %), the cancer detection rate from 4.0 (95 % CI 2.8-5.2) to 6.3 (95 % CI 4.5-8.0) per 1,000 screens. The programme sensitivity and positive predictive value of referral ranged from 55.1 % (95 % CI 45.1 %-65.1 %) to 81.5 % (95 % CI 73.4 %-89.6 %) and from 28.7 % (95 % CI 20.8 %-36.6 %) to 49.5 % (95 % CI 39.7 %-59.3 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found significant variations in screening outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. This stresses the importance of monitoring screening results on a local scale. KEY POINTS: • Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation is known at single reading • Population-based study showed significant variations in outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists • Local monitoring and regular feedback are important to optimise screening outcome.

Mammographic compression after breast conserving therapy: controlling pressure instead of force.

PURPOSE: X-ray mammography is the primary tool for early detection of breast cancer and for follow-up after breast conserving therapy (BCT). BCT-treated breasts are smaller, less elastic, and more sensitive to pain. Instead of the current force-controlled approach of applying the same force to each breast, pressure-controlled protocols aim to improve standardization in terms of physiology by taking breast contact area and inelasticity into account. The purpose of this study is to estimate the potential for pressure protocols to reduce discomfort and pain, particularly the number of severe pain complaints for BCT-treated breasts. METHODS: A prospective observational study including 58 women having one BCT-treated breast and one untreated nonsymptomatic breast, following our hospital's 18 decanewton (daN) compression protocol was performed. Breast thickness, applied force, contact area, mean pressure, breast volume, and inelasticity (mean E-modulus) were statistically compared between the within-women breast pairs, and data were used as predictors for severe pain, i.e., scores 7 and higher on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale. Curve-fitting models were used to estimate how pressure-controlled protocols affect breast thickness, compression force, and pain experience. RESULTS: BCT-treated breasts had on average 27% smaller contact areas, 30% lower elasticity, and 30% higher pain scores than untreated breasts (all p < 0.001). Contact area was the strongest predictor for severe pain (p < 0.01). Since BCT-treatment is associated with an average 0.36 dm(2) decrease in contact area, as well as increased pain sensitivity, BCT-breasts had on average 5.3 times higher odds for severe pain than untreated breasts. Model estimations for a pressure-controlled protocol with a 10 kPa target pressure, which is below normal arterial pressure, suggest an average 26% (range 10%-36%) reduction in pain score, and an average 77% (range 46%-95%) reduction of the odds for severe pain. The estimated increase in thickness is +6.4% for BCT breasts. CONCLUSIONS: After BCT, women have hardly any choice in avoiding an annual follow-up mammogram. Model estimations show that a 10 kPa pressure-controlled protocol has the potential to reduce pain and severe pain particularly for these women. The results highly motivate conducting further research in larger subject groups.

Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists introduced as part of the national quality assurance programme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 144 radiologists were invited to complete a test-set of 60 screening mammograms (20 malignancies). Participants assigned findings such as location, lesion type and BI-RADS. We determined areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves (AUC), case and lesion sensitivity and specificity, agreement (kappa) and correlation between reader characteristics and case sensitivity (Spearman correlation coefficients). RESULTS: A total of 110 radiologists completed the test (76%). Participants read a median number of 10,000 screening mammograms/year. Median AUC value was 0.93, case and lesion sensitivity was 91% and case specificity 94%. We found substantial agreement for recall (κ = 0.77) and laterality (κ = 0.80), moderate agreement for lesion type (κ = 0.57) and BI-RADS (κ = 0.45) and no correlation between case sensitivity and reader characteristics. CONCLUSION: Areas under the ROC curve, case sensitivity and lesion sensitivity were satisfactory and recall agreement was substantial. However, agreement in lesion type and BI-RADS could be improved; further education might be aimed at reducing interobserver variation in interpretation and description of abnormalities. We offered individual feedback on interpretive performance and overall feedback at group level. Future research will determine whether performance has improved. KEY POINTS: • We introduced and evaluated a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists. • ROC curves, case and lesion sensitivity and recall agreement were all satisfactory. • Agreement in BI-RADS interpretation and description of abnormalities could be improved. • These are areas that should be targeted with further education and training. • We offered individual feedback on interpretative performance and overall group feedback.

Immediate and delayed effects of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality and incidence in birth cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Trend studies investigating the impact of mammographic screening usually display age-specific mortality and incidence rates over time, resulting in an underestimate of the benefit of screening, that is, mortality reduction, and an overestimate of its major harmful effect, that is, overdiagnosis. This study proposes a more appropriate way of analysing trends. METHODS: Breast cancer mortality (1950-2009) and incidence data (1975-2009) were obtained from Statistics Netherlands, 'Stg. Medische registratie' and the National Cancer Registry in the Netherlands for women aged 25-85 years. Data were visualised in age-birth cohort and age-period figures. RESULTS: Birth cohorts invited to participate in the mammographic screening programme showed a deflection in the breast cancer mortality rates within the first 5 years after invitation. Thereafter, the mortality rate increased, although less rapidly than in uninvited birth cohorts. Furthermore, invited birth cohorts showed a sharp increase in invasive breast cancer incidence rate during the first 5 years of invitation, followed by a moderate increase during the following screening years and a decline after passing the upper age limit. CONCLUSION: When applying a trend study to estimate the impact of mammographic screening, we recommend using a birth cohort approach.

A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: Improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force.

PURPOSE: In x-ray mammography, flattening of the breast improves image quality and reduces absorbed dose. Current mammographic compression guidelines are based on applying a standardized force to each breast. Because breast size is not taken into consideration, this approach leads to large variations in applied pressure (force applied per unit contact area). It is the authors' hypothesis that a pressure-controlled compression protocol, which takes contact area into account, (1) improves standardization across the population in terms of physiological conditions in the compressed breast (blood pressure), and (2) reduces discomfort and pain, particularly the number of severe pain complaints, (3) with limited effects on image quality and absorbed glandular dose (AGD). METHODS: A prospective observational study including 291 craniocaudal (CC) and 299 mediolateral oblique (MLO) breast compressions in 196 women following the authors' hospital's standard compression protocol with 18 decanewton (daN) target force was performed. Breast thickness, applied force, area of contact between breast and compression paddle, and mean pressure were recorded during the entire compression. Pain scores before and after breast compressions were obtained using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Scores of 7 and higher were considered to indicate severe pain. The authors analyzed differences between the CC and MLO compressions, correlation coefficients (ρ) between compression parameters, and odds-ratios (OR) for all parameters as possible predictors for experiencing severe pain using multivariate logistic regression. The observed data were used in two models to estimate what breast thickness, required force, and pain score would be for pressure-controlled compression protocols with target pressures ranging from 4 to 28 kilopascal (kPa). For a selection of 79 mammograms having a 10% or more thickness difference with respect to the prior mammogram, the authors performed a retrospective observer study to assess whether such thickness differences have significant effects on image quality or AGD. RESULTS: In a standard 18 daN force-controlled compression protocol, the authors observed an average pressure of 21.3 kPa±54% standard deviation for CC compressions and 14.2 kPa±32% for MLO compressions. Women with smaller breasts endured higher pressures and experienced more pain, as indicated by a significant negative correlation (ρ=-0.19, p<0.01) between contact area and pain score. Multivariate regression showed that contact area is a strong and significant predictor for severe pain (ORNRS≥7 (CC)=0.10/dm2, p<0.05), as is the case with any pain already present before compression (ORNRS≥7 (CC)=1.61 per NRS-point, p<0.05). Model estimations showed that mammographic breast compression with a standardized pressure of 10 kPa, corresponding with normal arterial blood pressure, may significantly reduce the number of severe pain complaints with an average increase in breast thickness of 9% for small breasts and 2% for large breasts. For an average 16.5% thickness difference in prior-current mammogram pairs, the authors found no differences in image quality and AGD CONCLUSIONS: Model estimations and an observer study showed that pressure-controlled mammographic compression protocols may improve standardization and reduce discomfort with limited effects on image quality and AGD.

Likelihood of early detection of breast cancer in relation to false-positive risk in life-time mammographic screening: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women require balanced, high-quality information when making an informed decision on screening benefits and harms before attending biennial mammographic screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall and/or (small) screen-detected or interval cancer over 13 consecutive screening examinations for women aged 50 from the start of screening were estimated using data from the Nijmegen programme, the Netherlands. RESULTS: Women who underwent 13 successive screens in the period 1975-1976 had a 5.3% cumulative chance of a screen-detected cancer, with a 4.2% risk of at least one false-positive recall. The risk of being diagnosed with interval cancer was 3.7%. Two decades later, these estimates were 6.9%, 7.3% and 2.9%, respectively. The chance of detection of a small, favourable invasive breast cancer, anticipating a normal life-expectancy, rose from 2.3% to 3.7%. Extrapolation to digital screening mammography indicates that the proportion of false-positive results will rise to 16%. CONCLUSION: Dutch women about to participate in the screening programme can be reassured that the chance of false-positive recall in the Netherlands is relatively low. A new screening policy and improved mammography have increased the detection of an early screening carcinoma and lowering the risk of interval carcinoma.

Phantoms for quality control procedures in digital breast tomosynthesis: dose assessment.

The recent introduction of digital breast tomosynthesis into clinical practice requires quality control procedures. In this study we have investigated whether the assessment of the average glandular dose for modelled standard breasts can be performed using a combination of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and polyethylene (PE) slabs that matches standard breast thicknesses. For this purpose the energies absorbed per unit area of the image receptor when imaging standard breasts and PMMA-PE slabs have been matched taking account of both primary and scattered photons. To achieve this a two-step approach was used. Firstly, the behaviour of the scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) of PMMA-PE phantoms and standard breasts was investigated using Monte Carlo simulations for various conditions. For imaging without an anti-scatter grid, it was found that the values of standard breast and phantom SPR were significantly different and it follows that these differences are relevant when matching the absorbed energy. In the second part, a set of PMMA-PE combinations is proposed which, for dosimetric purposes, can be used to simulate standard breasts in the thickness range 20 to 100 mm. The dosimetric error when using these PMMA-PE slabs was found to be below 6% for thicknesses up to 7 cm and increases to 10% for 10 cm thickness.

Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a prediction model for breast cancer based on common mammographic findings on screening mammograms aiming to reduce reader variability in assigning BI-RADS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 352 positive screening mammograms of women participating in the Dutch screening programme (Nijmegen region, 2006-2008). The following mammographic findings were assessed by consensus reading of three expert radiologists: masses and mass density, calcifications, architectural distortion, focal asymmetry and mammographic density, and BI-RADS. Data on age, diagnostic workup and final diagnosis were collected from patient records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to build a breast cancer prediction model, presented as a nomogram. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in 108 cases (31 %). The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was found for spiculated masses (96 %) and the lowest for well-defined masses (10 %). Characteristics included in the nomogram are age, mass, calcifications, architectural distortion and focal asymmetry. CONCLUSION: With our nomogram we developed a tool assisting screening radiologists in determining the chance of malignancy based on mammographic findings. We propose cutoff values for assigning BI-RADS in the Dutch programme based on our nomogram, which will need to be validated in future research. These values can easily be adapted for use in other screening programmes. KEY POINTS: • There is substantial reader variability in assigning BI-RADS in mammographic screening. • There are no strict guidelines linking mammographic findings to BI-RADS categories. • We developed a model (nomogram) predicting the presence of breast cancer. • Our nomogram is based on common findings on positive screening mammograms. • The nomogram aims to assist screening radiologists in assigning BI-RADS categories.

[Effects of the population screening into breast cancer]. / Effecten van het bevolkingsonderzoek naar borstkanker.

Annually, in the Netherlands around 900,000 women between the ages of 50-75 years undergo mammography as part of a population screening into breast cancer. In this way more than 5000 cases of breast cancer are detected (0.6% of women screened); 70% of these malignancies are < stage II, which is prognostically favourable. Due to the early detection and treatment of breast cancer, the breast cancer death risk in those women who participate in the population screening is half that of women who choose not to be screened. The downside of the population screening is that participants are relatively often referred to a hospital for a diagnostic work-up (around 2%), and 70% of them are ultimately found not to have cancer. The positive predictive value of the population screening is 30%. Early discovery also leads to over-diagnosis in patients with breast cancer that without screening would never have manifested itself. Based on computer simulations it has been estimated that in the Netherlands over-diagnosis occurs in 9% of patients in whom breast cancer is detected during a population screening.

Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it?

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive stage of breast cancer with a heterogeneous clinical behaviour. Since the introduction of mammographic screening programmes, the incidence of DCIS has shown a dramatic increase. Treatment should focus on the prevention of progression to invasive disease. If progression occurs, poorly differentiated DCIS frequently gives rise to grade III invasive breast cancer, whereas well differentiated DCIS more often recurs as grade I invasive disease. However, at present, validated diagnostic test are lacking to predict progression accurately. The majority of women with DCIS are suitable for breast conserving therapy. Obtaining clear surgical margins is the most important goal of a local excision. Radiotherapy is effective in reducing the risk of local recurrence with about 50 % in all subgroups of patients with DCIS. (Breast cancer specific) survival of women with DCIS is excellent, and radiotherapy does not further improve this. Future research should be directed in enabling to select women who have a high risk of--invasive--recurrence, so in which radiotherapy should be standard part of the breast conserving approach, and those women with a more indolent lesion, in which after surgery a watchful waiting approach can be followed.