Abstract
The purpose of the study was to compare observer performance in the detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer among hard-copy reading and soft-copy readings using 3-megapixel (3M) and 5-megapixel (5M) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. For the microcalcification detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 40 surgically verified cancer cases and 60 normal cases. For the mass detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 50 cancer cases and 50 normal cases. After six readers assessed both microcalcifications and masses set for each modality, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. The average Azs for mass detection using a hard copy and 3M and 5M LCD monitors were 0.923, 0.927 and 0.920, respectively; there were no significant differences. The average Az for microcalcification detection using hard copy, 3M and 5M LCD monitors was 0.977, 0.954 and 0.972, respectively. There were no significant differences, but the P-values between the hard copy and 3M LCD monitor and that between the 3M and 5M LCD monitor were 0.08 and 0.09, respectively. In conclusion, the observer performances for detecting masses of breast cancers were comparable among the hard copy and two LCD monitors; however, soft-copy reading with a 3M LCD monitor showed slightly lower observer performance for detecting microcalcifications of breast cancers than hard-copy or 5M LCD monitor reading.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sickles EA (1986) Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentogenol 146:661–663
Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44
Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884
Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204
Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH (2002) Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 12:2188–2191
Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880
Ongeval CV, Bosmans H, Steen AV et al (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366
Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44
Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K et al (2003) Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344
Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488
American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RAD atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11:879–886
Yamada T, Saito M, Ishibashi T et al (2004) Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. Radiat Med 22:408–412
Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783
Scharitzer M, Prokop M, Weber M, Fuchsjager M, Oschatz E, Schaefer-Prokop C (2005) Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high-resolution cathode-ray tube monitors. Radiology 234:611–616
Balassy C, Prokop M, Weber M, Sailer J, Herold CJ, Schaefer-Prokop C (2005) Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: an observer preference study. AJR Am J Roentogenol 184:752–756
Oschatz E, Prokop M, Scharitzer M, Weber M, Balassy C, Schaefer-Prokop C (2005) Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions. Eur Radiol 15:1472–1476
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a grant from Fuji Film Medical Co., Ltd.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamitani, T., Yabuuchi, H., Soeda, H. et al. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 17, 1365–1371 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0452-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0452-6