METHODS: A literature search was conducted with the use of three online databases namely, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Developed keywords strategy was used to include only the relevant articles. A Population Intervention Comparison Outcomes (PICO) strategy was used to develop the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Image quality was analyzed quantitatively based on peak signal-noise-ratio (PSNR), Mean Squared Error (MSE), Absolute Mean Brightness Error (AMBE), Entropy, and Contrast Improvement Index (CII) values.
RESULTS: Nine studies with four types of image enhancement techniques were included in this study. Two studies used histogram-based, three studies used frequency-based, one study used fuzzy-based and three studies used filter-based. All studies reported PSNR values whilst only four studies reported MSE, AMBE, Entropy and CII values. Filter-based was the highest PSNR values of 78.93, among other types. For MSE, AMBE, Entropy, and CII values, the highest were frequency-based (7.79), fuzzy-based (93.76), filter-based (7.92), and frequency-based (6.54) respectively.
CONCLUSION: In summary, image quality for each image enhancement technique is varied, especially for breast cancer detection. In this study, the frequency-based of Fast Discrete Curvelet Transform (FDCT) via the UnequiSpaced Fast Fourier Transform (USFFT) shows the most superior among other image enhancement techniques.
METHODS: From February 2014 to January 2015, 214 patients underwent DM and DBT, acquired with a Siemens Mammomat Inspiration unit. 2 expert readers independently reviewed the studies in 2 steps: DM and DM+DBT, according to BI-RADS rate. Patients with BI-RADS 0, 3, 4, and 5 were recalled for work-up. Inter-reader agreement for BI-RADS rate and work-up rate were evaluated using Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement (κ value) for BI-RADS classification was 0.58 for DM and 0.8 for DM+DBT. DM+DBT increased the number of BI-RADS 1, 2, 4, 5 and reduced the number of BI-RADS 0 and 3 for both readers compared to DM alone. Regarding work-up rate agreement, κ was poor for DM and substantial (0.7) for DM+DBT. DM+DBT also reduced the work-up rate for both Reader 1 and Reader 2.
CONCLUSION: DM+DBT increased the number of negative and benign cases (BI-RADS 1 and 2) and suspicious and malignant cases (BI-RADS 4 and 5), while it reduced the number of BI-RADS 0 and 3. DM+DBT also improved inter-reader agreement and reduced the overall recall for additional imaging or short-interval follow-up.
METHODS: We retrospectively collected 15818 raw digital mammograms from 3772 Asian women aged 35-80 years who underwent screening or diagnostic mammography between Jan 2012 and Dec 2014 at our center. The mammograms were processed using a volumetric breast density (VBD) measurement software (Volpara) to assess compression force, compression pressure, compressed breast thickness (CBT), breast volume, VBD and MGD against breast contact area. The effects of reducing compression force on image quality and MGD were also evaluated based on measurement obtained from 105 Asian women, as well as using the RMI156 Mammographic Accreditation Phantom and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) slabs.
RESULTS: Compression force, compression pressure, CBT, breast volume, VBD and MGD correlated significantly with breast contact area (p<0.0001). Compression parameters including compression force, compression pressure, CBT and breast contact area were widely variable between [relative standard deviation (RSD)≥21.0%] and within (p<0.0001) Asian women. The median compression force should be about 8.1 daN compared to the current 12.0 daN. Decreasing compression force from 12.0 daN to 9.0 daN increased CBT by 3.3±1.4 mm, MGD by 6.2-11.0%, and caused no significant effects on image quality (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Force-standardized protocol led to widely variable compression parameters in Asian women. Based on phantom study, it is feasible to reduce compression force up to 32.5% with minimal effects on image quality and MGD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty mammography patients above 40 years and undergoing EIT were chosen using convenient sampling. Visual interpretation of the images was carried out by a radiologist with minimum of three years experience using the breast imaging - electrical impedance (BI-EIM) classification for detection of abnormalities. A set of thirty blinded EIT images were reinterpreted to determine the intra-rater reliability using kappa. Quantitative assessment was by comparison of the breast average electric conductivity with the norm and correlations with visual interpretation of the images were determined using Chi-square. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean electrical conductivity between groups and t-test was used for comparisons with pre-existing Caucasians statistics. Independent t-tests were applied to compare the mean electrical conductivity of women with factors like exogenous hormone use and family history of breast cancer.
RESULTS: The mean electrical conductivity of Malaysian women was significantly lower than that of Caucasians (p<0.05). Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography was significantly related with visual interpretation of images of the breast (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative assessment of electrical impedance tomography images was significantly related with visual interpretation.
METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.