BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warren, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Duffy, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Warren, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Duffy, S.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 70, Issue 838 1022-1027, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

A comparison of the effectiveness of 28 kV (grid) versus 25 kV (no grid) mammographic techniques for breast screening

RM Warren and S Duffy
Epping Breast Screening Service, Epping CM16 6TN, Cambridge, UK.

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of breast screening using a mammographic technique of 25 kV without a grid, with one of 28 kV with a grid. Effectiveness is judged by cancer detection, interval cancer rates, sensitivity and specificity calculations and tumour characteristics. The doses on standard physics tests given by the three machines when these exposure factors are selected were compared to see whether there is any scientific basis for recommendations on which is the more effective technique. The experiment was undertaken in the prevalence round of a screening programme set up in the UK in 1987. The main comparison is on 25,078 women randomized to one or other technique after March 1989. Comparison can also be made with the preceding 8482 women, who were examined by the 25 kV method, but not randomized and in whom there were a variety of other differences. In the randomized group there was no statistically significant difference in cancer detection. A minor difference in overall numbers without statistical significance was seen in favour of the 28 kV grid technique, but is offset by a greater interval cancer rate in this group. Small cancer detection was equal in the two groups. By contrast, the first 8482 women showed significantly worse screening performance, both in lower overall and small cancer detection rate, and in increased number of interval cancers, for which the explanation is likely to be complex. The dose measurements show that the use of a higher tube potential with the grid mitigates the dose increase that may have been expected. The choice between these two techniques is therefore neither automatically made by greater cancer detection nor made on grounds of dose. There was a minor dose penalty in using the 28 kV technique with grid.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1997 by the British Institute of Radiology.