Subjective Versus Quantitative Methods of Assessing Breast Density.

In order to find a consistent, simple and time-efficient method of assessing mammographic breast density (MBD), different methods of assessing density comparing subjective, quantitative, semi-subjective and semi-quantitative methods were investigated. Subjective MBD of anonymized mammographic cases (n = 250) from a national breast-screening programme was rated by 49 radiologists from two countries (UK and USA) who were voluntarily recruited. Quantitatively, three measurement methods, namely VOLPARA, Hand Delineation (HD) and ImageJ (IJ) were used to calculate breast density using the same set of cases, however, for VOLPARA only mammographic cases (n = 122) with full raw digital data were included. The agreement level between methods was analysed using weighted kappa test. Agreement between UK and USA radiologists and VOLPARA varied from moderate (κw = 0.589) to substantial (κw = 0.639), respectively. The levels of agreement between USA, UK radiologists, VOLPARA with IJ were substantial (κw = 0.752, 0.768, 0.603), and with HD the levels of agreement varied from moderate to substantial (κw = 0.632, 0.680, 0.597), respectively. This study found that there is variability between subjective and objective MBD assessment methods, internationally. These results will add to the evidence base, emphasising the need for consistent, simple and time-efficient MBD assessment methods. Additionally, the quickest method to assess density is the subjective assessment, followed by VOLPARA, which is compatible with a busy clinical setting. Moreover, the use of a more limited two-scale system improves agreement levels and could help minimise any potential country bias.

Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists.

PURPOSE: To assess whether subjective breast density categorization remains the most useful way to categorize mammographic breast density and whether variations exist across geographic regions with differing national legislation. METHODS: Breast radiologists from two countries (UK, USA) were voluntarily recruited to review sets of anonymized mammographic images (n = 180) and additional repeated images (n = 70), totaling 250 images, to subjectively rate breast density according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) categorization. Images were reviewed using standardized viewing conditions and Ziltron software. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using the Kappa test. RESULTS: The US radiologists (n = 25) judged fewer images as being "mostly fatty" than UK radiologists (n = 24), leading a greater number of images classified in the higher BI-RADS categories, particularly in BI-RADS 3. Overall agreement for all data sets was k = 0.654 indicating substantial agreement between the two cohorts. When the data were split into BI-RADS categories, the level of agreement varied from fair to substantial. CONCLUSION: Variations in how radiologists from the USA and UK classify breast density was established, especially when the data were divided into breast density categories. This variation supports the need for a reliable breast density assessment method to enhance the individualized supplemental screening pathways for dense breasts. The use of two-scale categorization method demonstrated improved agreement. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Larger sample of radiologists from different breast density jurisdictions confirms international subjective variability in density categorization and improved agreement with the two-scale (low, high) categorization. With this variability, a standardized and automated breast density assessment shows to be timely.

The Increased Source to Image-receptor Distance Technique: What Is Preventing Implementation in Clinical Practice?

Evidence in the literature shows that increasing the source to image-receptor distance (SID) can optimize specific radiographic projections; yet, despite this evidence base, the technique is not commonly practiced within all radiology departments. The present work aimed to bridge the gap between evidence and practice by interviewing allied health professionals to investigate the feasibility of implementing the technique in clinical practice. Opinions were sought from multiple sources to triangulate the data including radiographers, medical physicists, professional body council members, and university lecturers. Data were collected via telephone and departmental surveys, self-administered questionnaires, focus groups, and individual interviews. Analysis via keywords and themes was undertaken. Tradition, the capacity to change practice, and radiographic equipment were perceived as the main obstacles against clinical implementation. Seventy-five percent of radiographers working with modern equipment did not perceive any disadvantage to the radiographer in extending the SID by 30-50 cm compared with 59% of radiographers working with older equipment. However, when radiographer perceptions of implementing the technique were analysed, 100% of radiographers responded positively to increased SID implementation, especially "if given more information." The key to effective clinical implementation is to adopt a multidisciplinary approach and to actively disseminate information among hospital management and radiographers. There are no insurmountable issues preventing the implementation of the increased SID technique in clinical practice, and encouraging radiographers to explore optimization strategies has the potential to advance evidence-based practice within the profession.

A comparison of mean glandular dose diagnostic reference levels within the all-digital Irish National Breast Screening Programme and the Irish Symptomatic Breast Services.

Data on image quality, compression and radiation dose were collected from symptomatic breast units within the Republic of Ireland. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using SPSS. Recommendations of mean glandular dose (MGD) diagnostic reference levels were made at various levels for film-screen and full field digital mammography units to match levels published worldwide. MGDs received by symptomatic breast patients within Ireland are higher than those received in the all-digital Irish Breast Screening service; 55-65 mm breast: 1.75 mGy (screening) vs. 2.4 mGy (symptomatic) at the 95th percentile; various reasons are proposed for the differences. MGDs achieved in the screening service may be lower because of the exacting requirements for radiographer training, characteristics of the patients and equipment quality assurance levels. More precise imaging guidelines, standards and training of symptomatic radiographers performing mammography are suggested to remediate MGDs delivered to the breasts of Irish women attending the symptomatic breast services.

Reducing Dose for Digital Cranial Radiography: The Increased Source to the Image-receptor Distance Approach.

This investigation proposes that an increased source to the image-receptor distance (SID) technique can be used to optimize occipital frontal and lateral cranial radiographs acquired with direct digital radiography. Although cranial radiography is not performed on a routine basis, it should nonetheless be optimized to keep the dose to the patient as low as reasonably achievable, particularly because it can form part of the facial bone and sinus series. Dose measurements were acquired at various SIDs, and image quality was assessed using visual grading analysis. Statistically significant reductions in the effective dose between 19.2% and 23.9% were obtained when the SID was increased from the standard 100 to 150 cm (P ≤ .05), and visual grading analysis scores indicate that image quality remained diagnostically acceptable for both projections. This investigation concludes that increasing the SID effectively optimizes occipital frontal and lateral skull radiographs. Radiology departments must be advised of the benefits of this technique with the goal of introducing an updated reference SID of 150 cm into clinical practice.