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
  • [21] Comparison of screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program: The Oslo II-study
    Skaane, P
    Young, K
    Skjennald, A
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 267 - 267
  • [22] Accuracy of digital mammography vs. screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population
    Pisano, ED
    Cole, E
    Hemminger, BM
    Muller, K
    Shumak, R
    Yaffe, M
    Chakraborty, D
    Conant, E
    Fajardo, LL
    Feig, S
    Jong, R
    Kopans, D
    Maidment, A
    Staiger, M
    Williams, M
    IWDM 2000: 5TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 2001, : 504 - 511
  • [23] Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography
    Ishiyama, Mitsutomi
    Tsunoda-Shimizu, Hiroko
    Kikuchi, Mari
    Saida, Yukihisa
    Hiramatsu, Sonoe
    BREAST CANCER, 2009, 16 (01) : 58 - 61
  • [24] Digital and screen-film mammography: Comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Solari, M
    Barke, L
    Reddy, D
    Wolfman, J
    Segal, L
    DeLeon, P
    Benjamin, S
    Willis, L
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 187 (01) : 38 - 41
  • [25] Comparison of full-field digital and screen-film mammography dose
    Schueler, B.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2005 - 2005
  • [26] Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Cutter, GR
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) : 830 - 834
  • [27] Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography
    Mitsutomi Ishiyama
    Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu
    Mari Kikuchi
    Yukihisa Saida
    Sonoe Hiramatsu
    Breast Cancer, 2009, 16 : 58 - 61
  • [28] Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography of breast cancer
    Lewin, JM
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Hendrick, RE
    Moss, LJ
    Isaacs, PK
    Karellas, A
    Cutter, GR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 179 (03) : 671 - 677
  • [29] Screening Mammography Efficacy: A Comparison Between Screen-Film, Computed Radiography and Digital Mammography in Taiwan
    Elbakkoush, Abdallah Ahmed
    Atique, Suleman
    Chiang, I-Jen
    MEDINFO 2015: EHEALTH-ENABLED HEALTH, 2015, 216 : 914 - 914
  • [30] An ROC comparison between digital mammography and screen-film using an anthropomorphic breast phantom
    Qu, GY
    Huda, W
    Steinbach, BG
    Honeyman, JC
    IMAGE PERCEPTION: MEDICAL IMAGING 1997, 1997, 3036 : 178 - 185