European Radiology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1365–1371 | Cite as

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

  • Takeshi Kamitani
  • Hidetake Yabuuchi
  • Hiroyasu Soeda
  • Yoshio Matsuo
  • Takashi Okafuji
  • Shuji Sakai
  • Akio Furuya
  • Masamitsu Hatakenaka
  • Nobuhide Ishii
  • Hiroshi Honda
Breast

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.

Keywords

Breast radiography Radiography Digital Images Display Diagnostic radiology Observer performance 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a grant from Fuji Film Medical Co., Ltd.

References

  1. 1.
    Sickles EA (1986) Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentogenol 146:661–663Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 237:37–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 229:877–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 232:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 12:2188–2191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 218:873–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 16:1360–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K et al (2003) Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 223:483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RAD atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 11:879–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 22:408–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 234:611–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 184:752–756Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 15:1472–1476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takeshi Kamitani
    • 1
  • Hidetake Yabuuchi
    • 1
  • Hiroyasu Soeda
    • 1
  • Yoshio Matsuo
    • 1
  • Takashi Okafuji
    • 1
  • Shuji Sakai
    • 2
  • Akio Furuya
    • 3
  • Masamitsu Hatakenaka
    • 1
  • Nobuhide Ishii
    • 4
  • Hiroshi Honda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Health Sciences, School of MedicineKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyNational Fukuoka-Higashi Medical CenterKogaJapan
  4. 4.Fuji Film Medical Co., LtdFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations