Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography screen

被引:17
|
作者
Kim, Hak Hee
Pisano, Etta D.
Cole, Elodia B.
Jiroutek, Michael R.
Muller, Keith E.
Zheng, Yuanshui
Kuzmiak, Cherie M.
Koomen, Marcia A.
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Lineberger Comprehens Canc Ctr, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[3] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Seoul 138736, South Korea
[4] Salix Pharmaceut Inc, Morrisville, NC USA
[5] Univ N Carolina, Dept Biostat, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
breast; comparative studies; diagnostic radiology; digital images; mammography; observer performance;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.05.0187
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions-cropped or masked to display just the region of interest-both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with I as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS. Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for I or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION. No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 50
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: Comparison in the patients with microcalcifications
    Kim, HS
    Han, BK
    Choo, KS
    Jeon, YH
    Kim, JH
    Choe, YH
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 6 (04) : 214 - 220
  • [2] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Skaane, Per
    Diekmann, Felix
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    Diekmann, Susanne
    Piguet, Jean-Charles
    Young, Kari
    Abdelnoor, Michael
    Niklason, Loren
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (06) : 1134 - 1143
  • [3] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Per Skaane
    Felix Diekmann
    Corinne Balleyguier
    Susanne Diekmann
    Jean-Charles Piguet
    Kari Young
    Michael Abdelnoor
    Loren Niklason
    European Radiology, 2008, 18
  • [4] Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading
    Skaane, A
    Young, K
    Egge, ES
    Scheel, B
    Sovik, E
    Skjennald, A
    RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 283 - 284
  • [5] Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study
    Hendrick, R. Edward
    Cole, Elodia B.
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Acharyya, Suddhasatta
    Marques, Helga
    Cohen, Michael A.
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Mawdsley, Gordon E.
    Kanal, Kalpana M.
    D'Orsi, Carl J.
    Rebner, Murray
    Gatsonis, Constantine
    RADIOLOGY, 2008, 247 (01) : 38 - 48
  • [6] Breast lesion detection and classification: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-held digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Observer performance study
    Skaane, P
    Balleyguier, C
    Diekmann, F
    Diekmann, S
    Piguet, JC
    Young, K
    Niklason, LT
    RADIOLOGY, 2005, 237 (01) : 37 - 44
  • [7] Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study
    Skaane, P
    Young, K
    Skjennald, A
    RADIOLOGY, 2003, 229 (03) : 877 - 884
  • [8] A comparison of clinical findings in digital and screen-film mammography
    Piccoli, CW
    Maidment, AD
    Cavanaugh, BC
    Parker, L
    Albert, M
    Cupp, SL
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 417 - 417
  • [9] Soft-copy reading environment for screening mammography -: Screen
    Evertsz, CJG
    Bödicker, A
    Bohnenkamp, S
    Dechow, D
    Beck, C
    Peitgen, HO
    Berger, L
    Weber, U
    Jürgens, H
    Hendriks, JHCL
    Karssemeijer, N
    Brady, M
    IWDM 2000: 5TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 2001, : 566 - 572
  • [10] Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography
    Solari, M
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Wolfman, JA
    Willis, W
    Segal, L
    DeLeon, P
    Benjamin, S
    Reddy, D
    Mendelson, E
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2004, 182 (04) : 11 - 11