Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography
- Author
- Hilde Bosmans, An De Hauwere (UGent) , Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens (UGent) , Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck (UGent) , Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen (UGent) , Gretel Vande Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier and Erik Van Limbergen
- Organization
- Abstract
- To compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems. The number of women screened with CR was 73,008 and with DR 116,945. Technical and patient dose survey data of 25 CR and 37 DR systems were available. Technical performance was expressed by threshold thickness values at the mean glandular dose (MGD) level of routine practice. Clinical indicators included recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), percentage of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm and positive predictive value (PPV). Contrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 mu m (SD 0.13 mu m) for CR and 1.20 mu m (SD 0.13 mu m for DR). MGD was 2.16 mGy (SD 0.36 mGy) and 1.35 mGy (SD 0.32 mGy) for CR and DR respectively. We obtained for CR, respectively DR, the following results: RR in the first round of 5.48 % versus 5.61 %; RR in subsequent rounds of 2.52 % versus 2.65 %; CDR of 0.52 % versus 0.53 %; DCIS of 0.08 % versus 0.11 %; a rate of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm of 0.11 % versus 0.11 %; PPV of 18.45 % versus 18.64 %; none of them was significantly different. Our screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. Breast cancer screening can employ both computed (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). Screening performance parameters for CR and DR technology are not significantly different. Screening parameters are in accordance with European Guidelines. Radiation doses employed for CR are generally 60 % greater than for DR.
- Keywords
- Digitalmammography, CONTRAST-DETAIL ANALYSIS, IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT, FILM MAMMOGRAPHY, PROGRAM, DOSIMETRY, SYSTEMS, Computed radiography, Performance indicators, Breast cancer screening, Contrast threshold values
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 240.70 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-4174820
- MLA
- Bosmans, Hilde, et al. “Technical and Clinical Breast Cancer Screening Performance Indicators for Computed Radiography versus Direct Digital Radiography.” EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, vol. 23, no. 10, 2013, pp. 2891–98, doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0.
- APA
- Bosmans, H., De Hauwere, A., Lemmens, K., Zanca, F., Thierens, H., Van Ongeval, C., … Van Limbergen, E. (2013). Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 23(10), 2891–2898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0
- Chicago author-date
- Bosmans, Hilde, An De Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, et al. 2013. “Technical and Clinical Breast Cancer Screening Performance Indicators for Computed Radiography versus Direct Digital Radiography.” EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY 23 (10): 2891–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Bosmans, Hilde, An De Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen, Gretel Vande Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier, and Erik Van Limbergen. 2013. “Technical and Clinical Breast Cancer Screening Performance Indicators for Computed Radiography versus Direct Digital Radiography.” EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY 23 (10): 2891–2898. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0.
- Vancouver
- 1.Bosmans H, De Hauwere A, Lemmens K, Zanca F, Thierens H, Van Ongeval C, et al. Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY. 2013;23(10):2891–8.
- IEEE
- [1]H. Bosmans et al., “Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography,” EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 2891–2898, 2013.
@article{4174820, abstract = {{To compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems. The number of women screened with CR was 73,008 and with DR 116,945. Technical and patient dose survey data of 25 CR and 37 DR systems were available. Technical performance was expressed by threshold thickness values at the mean glandular dose (MGD) level of routine practice. Clinical indicators included recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), percentage of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm and positive predictive value (PPV). Contrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 mu m (SD 0.13 mu m) for CR and 1.20 mu m (SD 0.13 mu m for DR). MGD was 2.16 mGy (SD 0.36 mGy) and 1.35 mGy (SD 0.32 mGy) for CR and DR respectively. We obtained for CR, respectively DR, the following results: RR in the first round of 5.48 % versus 5.61 %; RR in subsequent rounds of 2.52 % versus 2.65 %; CDR of 0.52 % versus 0.53 %; DCIS of 0.08 % versus 0.11 %; a rate of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm of 0.11 % versus 0.11 %; PPV of 18.45 % versus 18.64 %; none of them was significantly different. Our screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. Breast cancer screening can employ both computed (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). Screening performance parameters for CR and DR technology are not significantly different. Screening parameters are in accordance with European Guidelines. Radiation doses employed for CR are generally 60 % greater than for DR.}}, author = {{Bosmans, Hilde and De Hauwere, An and Lemmens, Kim and Zanca, Federica and Thierens, Hubert and Van Ongeval, Chantal and Van Herck, Koen and Van Steen, Andre and Martens, Patrick and Bleyen, Luc and Vande Putte, Gretel and Kellen, Eliane and Mortier, Griet and Van Limbergen, Erik}}, issn = {{0938-7994}}, journal = {{EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY}}, keywords = {{Digitalmammography,CONTRAST-DETAIL ANALYSIS,IMAGE QUALITY ASSESSMENT,FILM MAMMOGRAPHY,PROGRAM,DOSIMETRY,SYSTEMS,Computed radiography,Performance indicators,Breast cancer screening,Contrast threshold values}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{10}}, pages = {{2891--2898}}, title = {{Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography}}, url = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0}}, volume = {{23}}, year = {{2013}}, }
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: