The low subject contrast between cancerous and fibroglandular tissue could obscure breast abnormalities.
Purpose
To investigate radiologists’ performance for detection of breast cancer in low and high mammographic density (MD) when cases are digitally acquired.
Material and Methods
A test set of 60 digital mammography cases, of which 20 were cancerous, were examined by 17 radiologists. Mammograms were categorized as low (≤50%) or high (>50%) MD and rated for suspicion of malignancy using the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology (RANZCR) classification system. Radiologist demographics including cases read per year, age, subspecialty, and years of reporting were recorded. Radiologist performance was analyzed by the following metrics: sensitivity; specificity; area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), location sensitivity, and jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM).
Results
Comparing high to low MD cases, radiologists showed a significantly higher sensitivity (P = 0.015), AUC (P = 0.003), location sensitivity (P = 0.002), and JAFROC FOM (P = 0.001). In high compared to low MD cases, radiologists with <1000 annual reads and radiologists with no mammographic subspecialty had significantly higher AUC, location sensitivity, and JAFROC FOM. Radiologists with ≥1000 annual reads and radiologists with mammography subspecialty demonstrated a significant increase in location sensitivity in high compared to low MD cases.
Conclusion
In this experimental situation, radiologists’ performance was higher when reading cases with high compared to low MD. Experienced radiologists were able to precisely localize lesions in breasts with higher MD. Further studies in unselected screening materials are needed to verify the results.
BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramI, et al.
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin2018;
68:394–424.
Jordan Breast Cancer Program. Governance annual newsletter of the Jordan Breast Cancer Program.
Amman:
Jordan Breast Cancer Program, 2008. Available at: http://www.jbcp.jo/files/newsletter.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).
6.
TabárLVitakBChenHHT, et al.
Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer2001;
91:1724–1731.
7.
BoydNFMartinLJBronskillM, et al.
Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2010;
102:1224–1237.
8.
BoydNFByngJWJongRA, et al.
Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst1995;
87:670–675.
9.
ByrneCSchairerCWolfeJ, et al.
Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst1995;
87:1622–1629.
10.
McCormackVAdosSantosSilvaI.Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2006;
15:1159–1169.
11.
MousaDARyanEMello-ThomsC, et al.
What effect does mammographic breast density have on lesion detection in digital mammography?Clin Radiol2014;
69:333–341.
12.
KerlikowskeKGradyDBarclayJ, et al.
Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA1996;
276:33–38.
13.
MandelsonMTOestreicherNPorterPL, et al.
Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst2000;
92:1081–1087.
14.
CarneyPAMigliorettiDLYankaskasBC, et al.
Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med2003;
138:168–175.
15.
PisanoEDHendrickREYaffeMJ, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology2008;
246:376–383.
16.
KavanaghAMByrnesGBNicksonC, et al.
Using mammographic density to improve breast cancer screening outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2008;
17:2818–2824.
17.
KerlikowskeKHubbardRAMigliorettiDL, et al.
Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med2011;
155:493–502.
18.
CiattoSHoussamiNBernardiD, et al.
Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol2013;
14:583–589.
19.
MousaDSAMello-ThomsCRyanEA, et al.
Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?Acad Radiol2014;
21:1377–1385.
20.
WeigelSHeindelWHeidrichJ, et al.
Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol2017;
27:2744–2751.
21.
Brennan P, Tapia K, Ryan J, et al., editors. BREAST: a novel method to improve the diagnostic efficacy of mammography. Medical Imaging 2013; Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; 2013. International Society for Optics and Photonics.
SohBPLeeWMcEnteeMF, et al.
Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting. Radiology2013;
268:46–53.
24.
KanalKMKrupinskiEBernsEA, et al.
ACR–AAPM–SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging2013;
26:10–25.
25.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) part 14: grayscale standard display function.
Rosslyn, VA:
NEMA Publishing, 2006.
26.
HaygoodTMRyanJBrennanP, et al.
On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies. Br J Radiol2013;
86:42313554.
27.
ChakrabortyDP.Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol2006;
13:1187–1193.
28.
LewinJMHendrickRED’OrsiCJ, et al.
Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology2001;
218:873–880.
29.
SéradourBHeidPEstèveJ.Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program. Am J Roentgenol2014;
202:229–236.
30.
MousaDSABrennanPCRyanEA, et al.
How mammographic breast density affects radiologists’ visual search patterns. Acad Radiol2014;
21:1386–1393.
31.
KrupinskiEARoehrigHDallasW, et al.
Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging2005;
18:311–315.
32.
RawashdehMALeeWBBourneRM, et al.
Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings. Radiology2013;
269:61–67.
33.
ReedWMLeeWBCawsonJN, et al.
Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers. Acad Radiol2010;
17:1409–1413.
34.
KanLOlivottoIAWarren BurhenneLJ, et al.
Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology2000;
215:563–567.
35.
ShahAJWangJYamadaT, et al.
Digital mammography: a review of technical development and clinical applications. Clin Breast Cancer2003;
4:63–70.
36.
TangJLiuXSunQ.A direct image contrast enhancement algorithm in the wavelet domain for screening mammograms. IEEE J-STSP2009;
3:74–80.
37.
ChenBWangWHuangJ, et al.
Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view post-processing methods in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol2010;
76:73–80.
38.
RoelofsAAKarssemeijerNWedekindN, et al.
Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology2007;
242:70–77.
