Audit of data from examination image headers collected for quality assurance in the ECOG‐ACRIN EA1151 tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (TMIST)

Abstract

AbstractPurposeA comprehensive, centrally‐monitored physics quality control (QC) program was developed for the Tomosynthesis Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST), a randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (TM) versus digital mammography (DM) for cancer screening. As part of the program, in addition to a set of phantom‐based tests, de‐identified data on image acquisition and processing parameters were captured from the DICOM headers of all individual patient images in the trial. These data were analyzed to assess the potential usefulness of header data from digital mammograms and tomosynthesis images of patients for quality assurance in breast imaging.MethodsData were automatically extracted from the headers of all de‐identified patient mammograms and tomosynthesis images in the TMIST study. Image acquisition parameters and estimated radiation doses were tracked for individual sites, systems and across system types. These parameters included (among others) kV, target/filter use, number of acquired views per examination, AEC mode, compression thickness and force and detector temperature. Consistency of manually entered study data parameters (subject ID, screening time‐point) from TMIST was evaluated. Preliminary observations from the program are presented.ResultsWe report on data from 812 651 images from 135 525 examinations acquired between October, 2017 and December, 2022. Data came from 6 system models from 3 manufacturers. There was greater variability both in the number of views used and in the estimated (proxy) doses received in DM exams compared to TM. Mean proxy doses per examination varied among manufacturers from 2.76–4.54 mGy for DM and 3–4.84 mGy for the tomosynthesis component in the TM arm with maximum examination proxy doses of 20 and 26 mGy for DM and TM respectively. Mean proxy doses per examination for the combination examination in TM (tomosynthesis plus digital mammography) varied from 6.6 to 7.6 mGy among manufacturers with a maximum of 44.5 mGy.ConclusionsOverall, modern digital mammography and tomosynthesis systems used in TMIST have operated very reliably. Doses vary considerably due to variation in the number of views per examination, thickness and fibro‐glandularity of the breast, and choices in the use of synthesized versus actual 2D mammography in the TM examination. These data may also be useful in predicting equipment problems. Header information is valuable not only for automated QC, but also for cross‐checking accuracy and consistency of data in a clinical study.