Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
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.
Svahn
T
T
Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Malmö University Hospital, SE-20502 Malmö, Sweden. tony.svahn@med.lu.se
Hemdal
B
B
Ruschin
M
M
Chakraborty
D P
DP
Andersson
I
I
Tingberg
A
A
Mattsson
S
S
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
Br J Radiol. 2005 Mar;78(927):207-18
15730985
Radiat Res. 2002 Aug;158(2):220-35
12105993
Eur Radiol. 1999;9(4):591-7
10354868
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):45-52
15933080
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;(22):63-7
9709278
Lancet. 2002 Mar 16;359(9310):909-19
11918907
Radiology. 2005 Nov;237(2):450-7
16244253
Lancet. 2003 Apr 26;361(9367):1405-10
12727392
Ann ICRP. 2004;34(1):1-73
15302167
Med Phys. 2006 Nov;33(11):4337-49
17153413
Acad Radiol. 1997 Aug;4(8):587-600
9261459
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):26-31
15933077
Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):1031-4
15895587
Eur Radiol. 2004 Apr;14(4):645-52
12920561
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):383-8
15933142
Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1-3):1-201
2053748
Ann ICRP. 1996;26(2):1-47
8911634
Med Phys. 2004 Aug;31(8):2313-30
15377098