European Radiology

, 18:2363

Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor

  • Takayuki Yamada
  • Akihiko Suzuki
  • Nachiko Uchiyama
  • Noriaki Ohuchi
  • Shoki Takahashi
Breast

Abstract

The purpose was to compare observer performance in the detection of breast cancer using hard-copy film, and 3-megapixel (3-MP) and 5-megapixel (5-MP) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors in a simulated screening setting. We amassed 100 sample sets, including 32 patients with surgically proven breast cancer (masses present, N = 12; microcalcifications, N = 10; other types, N = 10) and 68 normal controls. All the mammograms were obtained using computed radiography (CR; sampling pitch of 50 μm). Twelve mammographers independently assessed CR mammograms presented in random order for hard-copy and soft-copy reading at minimal 4-week intervals. Observers rated the images on seven-point (1 to 7) and continuous (0 to 100) malignancy scales. Receiver-operating-characteristics analysis was performed, and the average area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each modality. The jackknife method with the Bonferroni correction was applied to multireader/multicase analysis. The average AUC values for the 3-MP LCD, 5-MP LCD, and hard-copy film were 0.954, 0.947, and 0.956 on the seven-point scale and 0.943, 0.923, and 0.944 on the continuous scale, respectively. There were no significant differences among the three modalities on either scale. Soft-copy reading using 3-MP and 5-MP LCDs is comparable to hard-copy reading for detecting breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast neoplasm Digital radiography Data display Liquid crystals ROC curve 

Abbreviations

3MP

3-megapixel

5MP

5-megapixel

LCD

liquid crystal display

AUC

area under the curve

DMIST

Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

CR

computed radiography

BI-RADS

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

DICOM

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine

GSDF

greyscale standard display function

ROC

receiver-operating characteristic

FFDM

full-field digital mammography

References

  1. 1.
    Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesion. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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–The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pisano ED, 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
  8. 8.
    Gitlin JN, Narayan AK, Mitchell CA et al (2007) A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations. J Digit Imaging 20:42–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim HS, Han B, Choo K, Jeon YH, Kim J, Choe Y (2005) Screen-Film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: Comparison in the patients with microcalcification. Korean J Radiol 6:214–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ et al (2006) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. Am J Roentgenol 187:W576–W581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Fishmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M (2005) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78:312–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krug KB, Stutzer H, Girnus R et al (2007) Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Am J Roentgenol 188:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: Objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Ciatto S et al (2005) Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 55:258–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H et al (2007) 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 17:1365–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uematsu T, Kasami Y, Uchida Y (2007) Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 48:714–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Obennauer S, Hermann KP, Martern K et al (2003) Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zuley ML, Willison KM, Bonaccio E et al (2006) Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. Am J Roentgenol 187:1492–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saunders RS, Samiel E, Backer J et al (2006) Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol 13:1317–1326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brennan PC, McEntee M, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O’Connor WT, Manning DJ (2007) Ambient lighting: Effects of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wirst. Am J Roentgenol 188:W177–W180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takayuki Yamada
    • 1
  • Akihiko Suzuki
    • 2
  • Nachiko Uchiyama
    • 3
  • Noriaki Ohuchi
    • 2
  • Shoki Takahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyTohoku University, Graduate School of MedicineSendaiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyTohoku University, Graduate School of MedicineSendaiJapan
  3. 3.National Cancer Center, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and ScreeningTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations