Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:19:20.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Advances in X-ray mammography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

By
Kenneth C. Young  and
David R. Dance
Edited by
Michael J. Michell
Michael J. Michell
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Worldwide over one million women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year (10% of all new cancers). Regular mammographic screening has been proven to reduce mortality from the disease, and the reduction was 24% in eight randomized control trials (RCTs) in women over the age of 50 years invited for screening. In the UK 1.9 million women are screened annually within the Breast Screening Programme (BSP) and 14 000 cancers are detected. Since 1989 the rate of breast cancer detection by screening in England has nearly doubled. This increased rate of detecting cancers is attributed to changes in mammographic technology and practice (e.g. by optimizing the optical density of analogue mammograms and moving to two-view mammography) as well as improvements in the skills of the radiologists interpreting the films. In recent years modern mammographic X-ray sets have seen a number of advances that include the greater availability of alternative filters and target materials. Along with this has come the introduction of more sophisticated automatic exposure controls that choose the appropriate kV, filter, and target material depending on breast thickness and composition. There has also been a change toward more flexible compression paddles. However, the greatest change has been the introduction of digital detectors instead of screen–film cassettes, and that is the main focus of this chapter.

Benefits of moving to digital mammography

Digital mammography offers a number of technical and clinical advantages over screen–film. Among the technical advantages are greater dynamic range and better detection efficiency.

Type
Chapter
Information
Breast Cancer , pp. 46 - 69
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Vainio, H, Bianchini, F. eds. Breast Cancer Screening: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
Blanks, RG, Moss, SM. Breast cancer screening sensitivity in the NHSBSP: recent results and implications. Breast J 1999; 8:301–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital screening. New Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaane, P, Young, K. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – The Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229: 877–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skaane, P, Skjennald, A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program – The Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P, Potts, HWW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44: 798–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisano, ED, Yaffe, MJ. Digital Mammography. Radiology 2005; 234: 353–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shramchenko, N, Blin, P, Mathey, C, et al. Optimized exposure control in digital mammography. In: Yaffe, MJ, Flynn, MJ, eds. Medical Imaging 2004: Physics of Medical Imaging: 2004. Proc SPIE, Vol. 5368, 2004, 445–56.
Shaw, J, Albagli, D, Wei, CY. Enhanced a-Si / CsI–based flat panel x-ray detector for mammography. In: Yaffe, MJ, Flynn, MJ, eds. Medical Imaging 2004: Physics of Medical Imaging: 2004. Proc SPIE, Vol. 5368, 2004, 445–56.
Ghetti, C, Borrini, A, Ortenzia, O, et al. Physical Characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors. Med Phys 2008; 35: 456–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, RS, Samei, E, Jesneck, JL, et al.. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector. Med Phys 2005; 32: 588–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, W, DeCrescenzo, G, Rowlands, JA. Investigation of lag and ghosting in amorphous selenium flat-panel x-ray detectors. In: Antonuk, , Yaffe, MJ, eds. Medical Imaging 2002: Physics of Medical Imaging, Proc SPIE, Vol. 4682, 2002, 9–20.
Loustauneau, V, Bissonnette, M, Cadieux, S, et al. Ghosting comparison for large-area selenium detectors suitable for mammography and general radiography. In: Yaffe, MJ, Flynn, MJ, eds. Medical Imaging 2004: Physics of Medical Imaging: 2004. Proc SPIE, Vol. 5368, 2004, 162–9.
Bloomquist, AK, Yaffe, MJ, Mawdsley, GE, et al. Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system. Med Phys 2006; 33: 2998–3005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundqvist, M, Danielsson, M, Cederström, B, et al. Measurements on a full-field digital mammography system with a photon counting crystalline silicon detector. In: Yaffe, MJ, Antonuk, , eds. Medical Imaging 2003: Physics of Medical Imaging., Proc SPIE, Vol. 5030, 2003, 547–52.
Åslund, M, Cederstrom, B, Lundqvist, M, et al. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography. Med Phys 2006; 33: 933–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cahn, RN, Cederstrom, B, Danielsson, M, et al. Detective quantum efficiency dependence on x-ray energy weighting in mammography. Med Phys 1999; 26: 2680–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishikawa, RM, Tahoces, PG. The effect of scatter radiation and its removal on the DQE of digital mammography systems. In: Peitgen, HO, ed. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Digital Mammography (IWDM 2002), Bremen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002, 59–63.Google Scholar
www.cancerscreening.nhs.ukEvaluation and clinical assessment of digital mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose full field digital X-ray unit and Sectra breast imaging PACS. (NHSBSP Equipment Report 0601) Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening, 2006. Programmes, 2006.
Young, KC, Burch, A, Oduko, JM. Radiation doses in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 207–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowlands, JA. The physics of computed radiography. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47: R123–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Workman, A, Cowen, AR, Brettle, DS. Physical evaluation of computed radiography as a mammographic X-ray imaging system. Br J Radiol 1994; 67: 988–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ideguchi, T, Higashida, Y, Kawaji, Y, et al. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microns for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications. Radiat Med 2004; 22: 218–24.Google Scholar
Leblans PJR, Struye, L, Willems, P. New Needle-crystalline CR Detector. Proc SPIE, Vol. 4320, 2001.Google Scholar
Young, KC, Oduko, JM, Gundogdu, O, et al. Technical Evaluation of Konica Minolta Regius 190 CR Mammography System and Three Types of Image Plate. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, (NHSBSP Equipment Report 0806), 2008.
Zanca, F, Van Ongeval, C, Jacobs, J, et al. Performance evaluation of image processing algorithms in digital mammography. Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6917, 2008, 691–709.Google Scholar
Young, KC, Ramsdale, ML, Rust, A, et al. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast in mammography. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 1036–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, KC, Burch, A, Oduko, JM. Radiation doses in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 207–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dance, DR, Thilander, Klang A, Sandborg, M, et al. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 1056–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, KC, Oduko, JM, Bosmans, H, et al. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography. Brit J Radiol 2006; 79: 981–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, KC, Oduko, JM, Gundogdu, O, et al. Technical Evaluation of the IMS Giotto Full Field Digital Mammography System with a Tungsten Tube. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes (NHSBSP Equipment Report 0804,) (Other reports available at www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk), 2008.
Workman, A, Castellano, I, Kulama, E, et al. Commissioning and Routine Testing of Full Field Digital Mammography Systems. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes (NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604, http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk), 2006.
Engen, R, Young, KC, Bosmans, H et al. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: Perry, N, Broeders, M, Wolf, C, Toruberg, S, Holland, R, Karsa, L, eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Part B: Digital mammography. 4th ed. Luxembourg: European Commission, 2006.Google Scholar
Dobbins, JT, Godfrey, DJ. 2003 Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2008; 48: R65–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, JM, Franken, EA, Garg, M, et al. Breast Tomosynthesis: Present Considerations and Future Applications. Radiographics 2007; 27: S231–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diekmann, F, Bick, U. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 3086–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suryananarayanan, S, Karellas, A, Vedantham, S, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7: 1085–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, RL, Underhill, HR, Freimanis, RI. A controlled evaluation of tuned-aperture computed tomography applied to digital spot mammography. J Digit Imag 2000; 13: 90–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, I, Ikeda, DM, Zackrisson, S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2817–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafferty, E, Niklason, L, Halpern, E, et al. Assessing Radiologist Performance Using Combined Full-Field Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Alone: Results of a Multi-Center, Multi-Reader Trial. RSNA abstract, 2007.
Jong, RA, Yaffe, MJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228: 842–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diekmann, F, Diekmann, S, Jeunehomme F, et al. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast material: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 397–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skarpathiotakis, M, Yaffe, MJ, Bloomquist AK, et al. Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys 2002; 29: 2419–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, JM, Isaacs, PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: Feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boone, JM, Nelson, TR, Lindfors, KK, et al. Dedicated breast CT: Radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 2001; 221: 657–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, X, Vedula, AA, Glick, SJ. Microcalcification detection using cone-beam CT mammography with a flat-panel imager. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 2183–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, B, Ning, R. Cone-beam volume CT breast: Feasibility study. Med Phys 2002; 29: 755–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boone, JM, Shah, N, Nelson, TR. A comprehensive analysis of DgNCT coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography. Med Phys 2004; 31: 226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, JM, Nelson, TR, Lindfors, KK, et al. Dedicated breast CT: Radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 2001; 221: 657–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, X, Vedula, AA, Glick, SJ. Microcalcification detection using cone-beam CT mammography with a flat-panel imager. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 2183–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, B, Ning, R. Cone-beam volume CT breast: Feasibility study. Med Phys 2002; 29: 755–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thacker, SC, Glick, SJ. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for flat-panel CT breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 5433–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, JA, Rosen, EL, Lo, JY, et al. Copmuter-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion. Am J Radiol 2003; 181: 1083–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindfors, KK, McGrahan, MC, Rosenquist, CJ, et al. Computer aided detection of breast cancer: a cost effectiveness study. Radiology 2006; 239: 710–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, FJ, Astley, S, Gillan, MGC, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. New Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1675–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malich, A, Fischer, DR, Bottcher, J. CAD for mammography; the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1449–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishikawa, RM. Current status and future directions of computer-aided diagnosis in mammography. Comput Med Imag Graph 2007; 31: 224–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren Burhenne, LJ, Wood, SA, D'Orsi, CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 215: 554–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birdwell, RL, Ikeda, DM, O'Shaughnessy, KF, et al. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219: 192–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, RL, Blanks, RG, Moss, SM. Does the accuracy of single reading with CAD (computer-aided detection) compare with that of double reading? A review of the literature. Clin Radiol 2006; 61: 1023–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×