OBJECTIVES: To compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: Contrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 μm (SD 0.13 μm) for CR and 1.20 μm (SD 0.13 μm 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. CONCLUSION: Our screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. KEY POINTS: • 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.
OBJECTIVES: To compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: Contrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 μm (SD 0.13 μm) for CR and 1.20 μm (SD 0.13 μm 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. CONCLUSION: Our screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. KEY POINTS: • 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.
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: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lucy M Warren; Alistair Mackenzie; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Dev P Chakraborty; David R Dance; Hilde Bosmans; Kenneth C Young Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young Journal: Phys Med Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Anya Burton; Graham Byrnes; Jennifer Stone; Rulla M Tamimi; John Heine; Celine Vachon; Vahit Ozmen; Ana Pereira; Maria Luisa Garmendia; Christopher Scott; John H Hipwell; Caroline Dickens; Joachim Schüz; Mustafa Erkin Aribal; Kimberly Bertrand; Ava Kwong; Graham G Giles; John Hopper; Beatriz Pérez Gómez; Marina Pollán; Soo-Hwang Teo; Shivaani Mariapun; Nur Aishah Mohd Taib; Martín Lajous; Ruy Lopez-Riduara; Megan Rice; Isabelle Romieu; Anath Arzee Flugelman; Giske Ursin; Samera Qureshi; Huiyan Ma; Eunjung Lee; Reza Sirous; Mehri Sirous; Jong Won Lee; Jisun Kim; Dorria Salem; Rasha Kamal; Mikael Hartman; Hui Miao; Kee-Seng Chia; Chisato Nagata; Sudhir Vinayak; Rose Ndumia; Carla H van Gils; Johanna O P Wanders; Beata Peplonska; Agnieszka Bukowska; Steve Allen; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sue Moss; Anna M Chiarelli; Linda Linton; Gertraud Maskarinec; Martin J Yaffe; Norman F Boyd; Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva; Valerie A McCormack Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 6.466