Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: An observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 80, Issue 955, 2007, Pages 557-562

  Svahn, Tony ^a   Hemdal, B ^a   Ruschin, M ^a   Chakraborty, D P ^b   Andersson, I ^c   Tingberg, A ^a   Mattson, S ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOM; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION CARCINOGENESIS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION HAZARD; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION;

ADULT; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34548311949     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/29933797     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Cancer incidence 2002. Available at http://www.sos.se/sosmenye.htm, 2002.
2. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Causes of death 2002. Available at http://www.sos.se/sosmenye.htm, 2002.
3. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. The Lancet 2002;359:909-19.
4. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. The Lancet 2003;361:1405-10.
5. Leitz W. Röntgendiagnostik i Sverige. Uppstramad undersökning kan ge stora dosbesparingar. Strålskyddsnytt Nr 1. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, 1997 (in Swedish).
6. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR V). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
7. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) Publication 60. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1991;21.
8. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) Publication 93. Managing patient dose in digital radiology, 2004;34(1).
9. ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) Publication 73. Radiological protection and safety in medicine, 1996;26(2).
10. Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005;78:207-18.
11. Swedish Radiation Protection Authority. Regulations and general advice on diagnostic standard doses and reference levels within medical X-ray diagnostics. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, SSI FS 2002:2 (in Swedish, non-authorised translation to English available at http://www.ssi.se/forfattning/eng_forfattlista.html), 2002.
12. Zoetelief J, Fitzgerald M, Leitz W, Säbel M. European protocol on dosimetry in mammography. Publication EUR 16263 EN. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, 1996.
13. Hemdal B, Andersson I, Thilander Klang A, Bengtsson G, Leitz W, Bjurstam N, et al. Mammography - recent technical developments and their clinical potential. SSI report 2002:08. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, 2002. Available at http://www.ssi.se/ssi_rapporter/pdf/ ssi_rapp_2002_08.pdf.
14. Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 2004;14:645-52.
15. Hemdal B, Bay TH, Bengtsson G, Gangeskar L, Martinsen AC, Pedersen K, et al. Comparison of screen-film, imaging plate and direct digital mammography with CD phantoms. In: Peitgen H-O, editor. Digital mammography. The 6th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, IWDM 2002, Bremen, Germany. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2003:105-7.
16. Hemdal B, Andersson I, Grahn A, Håkansson M, Ruschin M, Thilander-Klang A, et al. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:383-8.
17. Kheddache S, Thilander-Klang A, Lanhede B, Månsson LG, Bjurstam N, Ackerholm P, et al. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques. Eur Radiol 1999;9:591-7.
18. Thilander-Klang A. Diagnostic quality and absorbed dose in mammography: influence of X-ray spectra and breast anatomy. Thesis, Department of Radiation Physics, University of Göteborg, 1997.
19. Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys 2006;33:4337-49.
20. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 2004;31:2313-30.
21. Chakraborty DP. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:26-31.
22. Börjesson S, Håkansson M, Båth M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, et al. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005; 114:45-52.
23. Penedo M, Souto M, Tahoces PG, Carreira JM, Villalon J, Porto G, et al. Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of JPEG2000 and object-based SPIHT lossy compression on digitized mammograms. Radiology 2005; 237:450-7.
24. The JAFROC software (version 1.05). Available from: www.devchakraborty.com.
25. Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmö Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:63-7.
26. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Late somatic effects. In: Abrahamson S, Bender MA, Boecker BB, Gilbert ES, Scott BR, editors. Health effects models for nuclear power plant accident consequence analysis. Modification of models resulting from addition of effects of exposure to alpha-emitting radionuclides, Part II: Scientific bases for health effects models. NUREG/CR-4214, Rev. 1, Part II, Addendum 2, LMF-136,1993.
27. EPA 1999. Cancer risk coefficients for environmental exposure to radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13, EPA 402-R-99-001. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
28. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Estimates of late radiation risks to the UK population. Document of the NRPB, Vol. 4, No. 4. Chilton: NRPB, 1993.
29. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). Review of radiation risk in breast screening. No. 54. NHSBSP, 2003.
30. Geise R. Efficacy and radiation safety in interventional radiology. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000.
31. Preston DL, Mattsson A, Holmberg E, Shore R, Hildreth NG, Boice JD. Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat Res 2002;158:220-35.
32. Statistics Sweden. Population statistics. Available from www.scb.se, 2002.
33. Zheng B, Chakraborty DP, Rockette HE, Maitz GS, Gur D. A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using jackknife ROC and JAFROC. Med Phys 2005;32:1031-4.
34. Vuylsteke P, Schoeters E, Mortsel B. Image processing in computed radiography, computerized tomography for industrial applications and image processing in radiology. DGZfP Proceedings BB 67-CD: 87-101, Berlin, Germany, 1999.
35. Roe CA, Metz CE. Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. Acad Radiol 1997;4:587-600.