OBJECTIVE: The two objectives of this study were to create an ex vivo phantom model that closely mimics human breast cancer for detection tasks and to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography in detecting and characterizing small breast masses in a phantom with a spectrum of complex tissue backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen phantom breast masses of varying sizes (0.3-1.2 cm), shapes (round and irregular), and densities (high and low) were created from shaved tumor specimens and imaged using both full-field digital and screen-film mammography techniques. We created 408 detection tasks that were captured on 68 films. On each radiograph, six detection tasks were partially obscured by areas of varying breast-pattern complexity, including low (predominantly fatty), mixed (scattered fibroglandular densities and heterogeneously dense), and high (extremely dense) density patterns. Each detection task was scored using a five-point confidence scale by three mammographers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to analyze differences in detection of masses between the two imaging systems, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were computed. RESULTS: Full-field digital mammography showed higher area under the ROC curve than screen-film mammography for detecting masses in each breast background and performed significantly better than screen-film mammography in mixed (p = 0.010), dense (p = 0.029), and all breast backgrounds combined (p = 0.004). Full-field digital mammography was superior to screen-film mammography for characterizing round and irregular masses and low- and high-density masses. CONCLUSION: Full-field digital mammography was significantly superior to screen-film technique for detecting and characterizing small masses in mixed and dense breast backgrounds in a phantom model.
OBJECTIVE: The two objectives of this study were to create an ex vivo phantom model that closely mimics humanbreast cancer for detection tasks and to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography in detecting and characterizing small breast masses in a phantom with a spectrum of complex tissue backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen phantom breast masses of varying sizes (0.3-1.2 cm), shapes (round and irregular), and densities (high and low) were created from shaved tumor specimens and imaged using both full-field digital and screen-film mammography techniques. We created 408 detection tasks that were captured on 68 films. On each radiograph, six detection tasks were partially obscured by areas of varying breast-pattern complexity, including low (predominantly fatty), mixed (scattered fibroglandular densities and heterogeneously dense), and high (extremely dense) density patterns. Each detection task was scored using a five-point confidence scale by three mammographers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to analyze differences in detection of masses between the two imaging systems, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were computed. RESULTS: Full-field digital mammography showed higher area under the ROC curve than screen-film mammography for detecting masses in each breast background and performed significantly better than screen-film mammography in mixed (p = 0.010), dense (p = 0.029), and all breast backgrounds combined (p = 0.004). Full-field digital mammography was superior to screen-film mammography for characterizing round and irregular masses and low- and high-density masses. CONCLUSION: Full-field digital mammography was significantly superior to screen-film technique for detecting and characterizing small masses in mixed and dense breast backgrounds in a phantom model.
Authors: H P Chan; M A Helvie; N Petrick; B Sahiner; D D Adler; C Paramagul; M A Roubidoux; C E Blane; L K Joynt; T E Wilson; L M Hadjiiski; M M Goodsitt Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laszlo Tabar; Ming-Fang Yen; Bedrich Vitak; Hsiu-Hsi Tony Chen; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S A Feig; G S Shaber; A Patchefsky; G F Schwartz; J Edeiken; H I Libshitz; R Nerlinger; R F Curley; J D Wallace Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1977-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gábor Forrai; Eszter Kovács; Éva Ambrózay; Miklós Barta; Katalin Borbély; Zsolt Lengyel; Katalin Ormándi; Zoltán Péntek; Tasnádi Tünde; Éva Sebő Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 2.874
Authors: Lore Timmermans; Luc Bleyen; Klaus Bacher; Koen Van Herck; Kim Lemmens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Isabel De Brabander; Mathieu Goossens; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315