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 15 条
  • [1] Digital mammography: Observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications
    Chan, HP
    Helvie, MA
    Petrick, N
    Sahiner, B
    Adler, DD
    Paramagul, C
    Roubidoux, MA
    Blane, CE
    Joynt, LK
    Wilson, TE
    Hadjiiski, LM
    Goodsitt, MM
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2001, 8 (06) : 454 - 466
  • [2] Di Nubila Brunella, 2003, Radiol Med, V106, P297
  • [3] Comparing the visualization of microcalcifications with direct magnification in digital full-field mammography vs. film-screen mammography
    Diekmann, F
    Diekmann, S
    Bick, U
    Rogalla, P
    Blohmer, JU
    Winzer, KJ
    Hamm, B
    [J]. ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2002, 174 (03): : 297 - 300
  • [4] Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography
    Fischer, U
    Baum, F
    Obenauer, S
    Luftner-Nagel, S
    von Heyden, D
    Vosshenrich, R
    Grabbe, E
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (11) : 2679 - 2683
  • [5] Softcopy versus hardcopy interpretation in digital mammography
    Funke, M
    Obenauer, S
    Hermann, KP
    Fischer, U
    Grabbe, E
    [J]. RADIOLOGE, 2002, 42 (04): : 265 - 269
  • [6] Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications
    Hermann, KP
    Obenauer, S
    Funke, M
    Grabbe, EH
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (09) : 2188 - 2191
  • [7] Hard- versus soft-copy interpretation
    Johnson, CD
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2003, 227 (03) : 629 - 630
  • [8] Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens
    Kuzmiak, CM
    Millnamow, GA
    Qaqish, B
    Pisano, ED
    Cole, EB
    Brown, ME
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2002, 9 (12) : 1378 - 1382
  • [9] Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations
    Lewin, JM
    Hendrick, RE
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Isaacs, PK
    Moss, LJ
    Karellas, A
    Sisney, GA
    Kuni, CC
    Cutter, GR
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 218 (03) : 873 - 880
  • [10] Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography
    Obenauer, S
    Hermann, KP
    Marten, K
    Luftner-Nagel, S
    von Heyden, D
    Skaane, P
    Grabbe, E
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2003, 16 (04) : 341 - 344