METHODS: We established a nurse- and community-navigator-led navigation program in breast clinics of four public hospitals located in Peninsular and East Malaysia and evaluated the impact of navigation on timeliness of diagnosis and treatment.
RESULTS: Patients with breast cancer treated at public hospitals reported facing barriers to accessing care, including having a poor recognition of breast cancer symptoms and low awareness of screening methods, and facing financial and logistics challenges. Compared with patients diagnosed in the previous year, patients receiving navigation experienced timely ultrasound (84.0% v 65.0%; P < .001), biopsy (84.0% v 78.0%; P = .012), communication of news (63.0% v 40.0%; P < .001), surgery (46% v 36%; P = .008), and neoadjuvant therapy (59% v 42%, P = .030). Treatment adherence improved significantly (98.0% v 87.0%, P < .001), and this was consistent across the network of four breast clinics.
CONCLUSION: Patient navigation improves access to timely diagnosis and treatment for women presenting at secondary and tertiary hospitals in Malaysia.
METHODS: 3317 raw digital mammograms were processed with Volpara(®) (Matakina Technology Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand) to obtain fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV), breast volume (BV) and VBD. Errors in parameters including CBT, kVp, filter thickness and mAs were simulated by varying them in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) tags of the images up to ±10% of the original values. Errors in detector gain and offset were simulated by varying them in the Volpara configuration file up to ±10% from their default values. For image noise, Gaussian noise was generated and introduced into the original images.
RESULTS: Errors in filter thickness, mAs, detector gain and offset had limited effects on FGV, BV and VBD. Significant effects in VBD were observed when CBT, kVp, detector offset and image noise were varied (p
METHODS: 5 radiologists read 1 identical test set of 200 mammographic (180 normal cases and 20 abnormal cases) 3 times and were requested to adhere to 3 different recall rate conditions: free recall, 15% and 10%. The radiologists were asked to mark the locations of suspicious lesions and provide a confidence rating for each decision. An independent expert radiologist identified the various types of cancers in the test set, including the presence of calcifications and the lesion location, including specific mammographic density.
RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated lower sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for non-specific density/asymmetric density (H = 6.27, p = 0.04 and H = 7.35, p = 0.03, respectively) and mixed features (H = 9.97, p = 0.01 and H = 6.50, p = 0.04, respectively) when reading at 15% and 10% recall rates. No significant change was observed on cancer characterized with stellate masses (H = 3.43, p = 0.18 and H = 1.23, p = 0.54, respectively) and architectural distortion (H = 0.00, p = 1.00 and H = 2.00, p = 0.37, respectively). Across all recall conditions, stellate masses were likely to be recalled (90.0%), whereas non-specific densities were likely to be missed (45.6%).
CONCLUSION: Cancers with a stellate mass were more easily detected and were more likely to continue to be recalled, even at lower recall rates. Cancers with non-specific density and mixed features were most likely to be missed at reduced recall rates. Advances in knowledge: Internationally, recall rates vary within screening mammography programs considerably, with a range between 1% and 15%, and very little is known about the type of breast cancer appearances found when radiologists interpret screening mammograms at these various recall rates. Therefore, understanding the lesion types and the mammographic appearances of breast cancers that are affected by readers' recall decisions should be investigated.
METHODS: We used digitised mammograms for 371 monozygotic twin pairs, aged 40-70 years without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer at the time of mammography, from the Australian Mammographic Density Twins and Sisters Study. We generated normalised, age-adjusted, and standardised risk scores based on textures using the Cirrus algorithm and on three spatially independent dense areas defined by increasing brightness threshold: light areas, bright areas, and brightest areas. Causal inference was made using the Inference about Causation from Examination of FAmilial CONfounding (ICE FALCON) method.
RESULTS: The mammogram risk scores were correlated within twin pairs and with each other (r = 0.22-0.81; all P
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The measurement challenge has been established as an international resource to offer a common set of anonymised mammogram images for measurement and analysis. To date, full field digital mammogram images and core data from 1650 cases and 1929 controls from five countries have been collated. The measurement challenge is an ongoing collaboration and we are continuing to expand the resource to include additional image sets across different populations (from contributors) and to compare additional measurement methods (by challengers). The intended use of the measurement challenge resource is for refinement and validation of new and existing mammographic measurement methods. The measurement challenge resource provides a standardised dataset of mammographic images and core data that enables investigators to directly compare methods of measuring mammographic density or other mammographic features in case/control sets of both raw and processed images, for the purposes of the comparing their predictions of breast cancer risk.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Challengers and contributors are required to enter a Research Collaboration Agreement with the University of Melbourne prior to participation in the measurement challenge. The Challenge database of collated data and images are stored in a secure data repository at the University of Melbourne. Ethics approval for the measurement challenge is held at University of Melbourne (HREC ID 0931343.3).
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.