Background Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for... Show moreBackground Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk.Methods In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661.Findings Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4.3 (SD 1.76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0.0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0.010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0.023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0.035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0.014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0.0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group).Interpretation MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Balta, C.; Bouwman, R.W.; Broeders, M.J.M.; Karssemeijer, N.; Veldkamp, W.J.H.; Sechopoulos, I.; Engen, R.E. van 2019
The channelized-Hotelling observer (CHO) was investigated as a surrogate of human observers in task-based image quality assessment. The CHO with difference-of-Gaussian (DoG) channels has shown... Show moreThe channelized-Hotelling observer (CHO) was investigated as a surrogate of human observers in task-based image quality assessment. The CHO with difference-of-Gaussian (DoG) channels has shown potential for the prediction of human detection performance in digital mammography (DM) images. However, the DoG channels employ parameters that describe the shape of each channel. The selection of these parameters influences the performance of the DoG CHO and needs further investigation. The detection performance of the DoG CHO was calculated and correlated with the detection performance of three humans who evaluated DM images in 2-alternative forced-choice experiments. A set of DM images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom with and without calcification-like signals was acquired at four different dose levels. For each dose level, 200 square regions-of-interest (ROIs) with and without signal were extracted. Signal detectability was assessed on ROI basis using the CHO with various DoG channel parameters and it was compared to that of the human observers. It was found that varying these DoG parameter values affects the correlation (r(2)) of the CHO with human observers for the detection task investigated. In conclusion, it appears that the the optimal DoG channel sets that maximize the prediction ability of the CHO might be dependent on the type of background and signal of ROIs investigated. (C) 2019 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Show less
PurposeTo study the feasibility of a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) to predict human observer performance in detecting calcification-like signals in mammography images of an anthropomorphic... Show morePurposeTo study the feasibility of a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) to predict human observer performance in detecting calcification-like signals in mammography images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom, as part of a quality control (QC) framework.MethodsA prototype anthropomorphic breast phantom with inserted gold disks of 0.25 mm diameter was imaged with two different digital mammography x-ray systems at four different dose levels. Regions of interest (ROIs) were extracted from the acquired processed and unprocessed images, signal-present and signal-absent. The ROIs were evaluated by a CHO using four different formulations of the difference of Gaussian (DoG) channel sets. Three human observers scored the ROIs in a two-alternative forced-choice experiment. We compared the human and the CHO performance on the simple task to detect calcification-like disks in ROIs with and without postprocessing. The proportion of correct responses of the human reader (PCH) and the CHO (PCCHO) was calculated and the correlation between the two was analyzed using a mixed-effect regression model. To address the signal location uncertainty, the impact of shifting the DoG channel sets in all directions up to two pixels was evaluated. Correlation results including the goodness of fit (r(2)) of PCH and PCCHO for all different parameters were evaluated.ResultsSubanalysis by system yielded strong correlations between PCH and PCCHO, with r(2) between PCH and PCCHO was found to be between 0.926 and 0.958 for the unshifted and between 0.759 and 0.938 for the shifted channel sets, respectively. However, the linear fit suggested a slight system dependence. PCCHO with shifted channel sets increased CHO performance but the correlation with humans was decreased. These correlations were not considerably affected by of the DoG channel set used.ConclusionsThere is potential for the CHO to be used in QC for the evaluation of detectability of calcification-like signals. The CHO can predict the PC of humans in images of calcification-like signals of two different systems. However, a global model to be used for all systems requires further investigation. Show less
