Comparison of screening performance metrics and patient dose of two mammographic image acquisition modes in the Danish National Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Issue 105 (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Abdi, Ahmed Jibril; Fieselmann, Andreas; Pfaff, Heiderose; Mertelmeier, Thomas; Larsen, Lisbet Brønsro
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 105(2018)
• Page Start: 188
• Page End: 194
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Breast cancer screening -- Grid-less mammography -- Sensitivity and specificity -- Patient dose saving; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: In this study, screening performance metrics and radiation dose were compared for two image acquisition modes for breast cancer screening with MAMMOMAT Inspiration (Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany). This mammography system can operate without an anti-scatter grid in place but using software scatter correction instead. This grid-less acquisition mode (PRIME) requires less patient dose due to the increase in primary radiation reaching the detector. This study retrospectively analyses data from the Region of Southern Denmark where the grid-less mode has been installed in November 2013 and replaced grid-based screening. Methods and materials: A total of 72, 188 screening cases from the same geographical region in Denmark were included in the study. They were subdivided into two study populations: cases acquired before and after installation of the grid-less acquisition mode. Sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer screening were calculated for the two populations; thus representing the performance of grid-less and grid-based screening. To measure the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) additional phantom tests were carried out. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) attenuation plates with different thicknesses (20–70 mm in steps of 10 mm) simulated the compressed breast (21 mm–90 mm) and a solid-state dosimeter was used. Results: Statistical testing of the results showed that screening with grid-less acquisition provides equivalent performance with respect to sensitivity and specificity compared to grid-based screening. The specificity was 98.11% (95% confidence interval (CI) from 97.93% to 98.29%) and 97.96% (95% CI from 97.84% to 98.09%) for screening with grid-less acquisition and grid-based acquisition, respectively. The cancer detection rate as a measure for sensitivity was equal (0.55%) for grid-less screening and grid-based screening. An average glandular dose saving between 13.5% and 36.4% depending on breast thickness in grid-less acquisition was obtained compared to grid-based acquisition. Conclusion: Statistically significant equivalence was shown with an equivalence margin of 0.12% points for cancer detection rate and with an equivalence margin of 0.40% points for specificity. A marked patient dose savings in grid-less acquisition of up to 36% compared to grid-based acquisition was achieved. It can be concluded that grid-less acquisition with software scatter correction is an alternative to grid-based acquisition in mammography.