title: Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
abstract: This study aimed to investigate the effect of dose reduction on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography. Simulated masses and microcalcifications were positioned in an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Thirty digital images, 14 with lesions, 16 without, were acquired of the phantom using a Mammomat Novation (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) at each of three dose levels. These corresponded to 100%, 50% and 30% of the normally used average glandular dose (AGD; 1.3 mGy for a standard breast). Eight observers interpreted the 90 unprocessed images in a free response study, and the data were analysed with the jackknife free response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) method. Observer performance was assessed using the JAFROC figure of merit (FOM). The benefit of radiation risk reduction was estimated based on several risk models. There was no statistically significant difference in performance, as described by the FOM, between the 100% and the 50% dose levels. However, the FOMs for both the 100% and the 50% dose were significantly different from the corresponding quantity for the 30% dose level (F-statistic = 4.95, p-value = 0.01). A dose reduction of 50% would result in three to nine fewer breast cancer fatalities per 100,000 women undergoing annual screening from the age of 40 to 49 years. The results of the study indicate a possibility of reducing the dose to the breast to half the dose level currently used. This has to be confirmed in clinical studies, and possible differences depending on lesion type should be examined further.
authors: Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Malmö University Hospital, SE-20502 Malmö, Sweden. tony.svahn@med.lu.se
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Svahn
authors: B
authors: B
authors: Hemdal
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Ruschin
authors: D P
authors: DP
authors: Chakraborty
authors: I
authors: I
authors: Andersson
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Tingberg
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Mattsson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001940:Breast / Q000528:radiation effects*; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D002114:Calcinosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D015588:Observer Variation; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D012372:ROC Curve; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
references: Br J Radiol. 2005 Mar;78(927):207-18
references: 15730985
references: Radiat Res. 2002 Aug;158(2):220-35
references: 12105993
references: Eur Radiol. 1999;9(4):591-7
references: 10354868
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):45-52
references: 15933080
references: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):63-7
references: 9709278
references: Lancet. 2002 Mar 16;359(9310):909-19
references: 11918907
references: Radiology. 2005 Nov;237(2):450-7
references: 16244253
references: Lancet. 2003 Apr 26;361(9367):1405-10
references: 12727392
references: Ann ICRP. 2004;34(1):1-73
references: 15302167
references: Med Phys. 2006 Nov;33(11):4337-49
references: 17153413
references: Acad Radiol. 1997 Aug;4(8):587-600
references: 9261459
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):26-31
references: 15933077
references: Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1031-4
references: 15895587
references: Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):645-52
references: 12920561
references: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):383-8
references: 15933142
references: Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201
references: 2053748
references: Ann ICRP. 1996;26(2):1-47
references: 8911634
references: Med Phys. 2004 Aug;31(8):2313-30
references: 15377098