Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Soft Copy versus Hard Copy Reading in Digital Mammography

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare soft copy reading at a mammography work station with hard copy reading of full-field digital mammographic images. Mammograms of 60 patients (n = 29 malignant, n = 31 benign) performed with full-field digital mammography (Senographe 2000D, GE, Buc, France) were evaluated. Reading was performed based on hard copy prints (Scopix, Agfa, Leverkusen, Germany) and on 2 k × 2.5 k high-resolution monitors (Sun Ultra 60, Sun Microsystems, Palo Alto, California, USA). Four readers with different levels of experience in mammography categorized the mammograms according to the BI-RADS classification. The comparative study was performed by four readers, and at least 2 months elapsed between the reading sessions. Postprocessing, of course, was available only at the work station (windowing and leveling, zooming, inversion). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy of the evaluation was determined. Sensitivity for malignant lesions in hard copy versus soft copy reading was 97% vs 90%, 97% vs 97%, 93% vs 97%, and 76% vs 76% for the four readers, respectively. Specificity was 52% vs 68%, 58% vs 74%, 65% vs 48%, and 61% vs 68%. Accuracy for the classification of malignant lesions according to the BI-RADS categories showed no difference between hard copy and soft copy reading. Soft copy reading is possible with the available system and enables radiologists to use the advantages of a digital system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. L Tabar B Vitak HH Chen et al. (2001) ArticleTitleBeyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91 1724–1731 Occurrence Handle11335897

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. N Bjurstam L Bjorneld SW Duffy et al. (1997) ArticleTitleThe Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization. Cancer 80 2091–2099 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2Flt1ahtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9392331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. SA Feig CJ D‘Orsi RE Hendrick (1998) ArticleTitleAmerican College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171 29–33

    Google Scholar 

  4. F Shtern (2002) ArticleTitleDigital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the national cancer institute. Radiology 183 629–630

    Google Scholar 

  5. B Zheng MA Ganott CA Britton et al. (2001) ArticleTitleSoft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cueing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 221 633–640 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnntlOrtg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11719657

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. ED Pisano EB Cole E Kistner et al. (2002) ArticleTitleDigital mammography interpretation—comparison of the speed and accuracy of softcopy versus printed film display. Radiology 223 483–488 Occurrence Handle11997557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. AR Cowen GJS Parkin P Hawkridge (1997) ArticleTitleDirect digital mammography image acquisition. Eur Radiol 7 918–930 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s003300050228 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA2szmsFc%3D Occurrence Handle9228110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. SA Feig MJ Yaffe (1995) ArticleTitleDigital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography. Breast Imaging 33 1205–1230 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD1cnpslQ%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. ED Pisano (2000) ArticleTitleCurrent status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 214 26–28 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7gs12isQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10644097

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. MJ Yaffe JA Rowlands (1997) ArticleTitleX-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 42 1–39 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiC28fhvV0%3D Occurrence Handle9015806

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. M Funke N Breiter KP Hermann et al. (1998) ArticleTitleStorage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography—a phantom study. Br J Radiol 71 528–534 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czls12htQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9691898

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. S Muller (1999) ArticleTitleFull-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur Radiol 31 25–34 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0720-048X(99)00066-2 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvgsVOntw%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. M Funke T Netsch N Breiter et al. (1999) ArticleTitleComputer assisted visualisation of digital mammography images. Fortschr Rontgenstr 171 359–363

    Google Scholar 

  14. KP Hermann S Obenauer E Grabbe (2000) ArticleTitleComparison of radiation exposure between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based mammography system. Fortschr Rontgenstr 172 940–945

    Google Scholar 

  15. S Obenauer KP Hermann C Schorn et al. (2000) ArticleTitleFull-field digital mammography: a phantom study for the detectability of microcalcifications. Fortschr Rontgenstr 172 646–650

    Google Scholar 

  16. S Obenauer KP Hermann C Schorn et al. (2000) ArticleTitleFull-field digital mammography: dose-dependant detectability of simulated breast lesions. Fortschr Rontgenstr 172 1052–1056

    Google Scholar 

  17. InstitutionalAuthorNameAmerican College of Radiology (ACR) (1998) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3rd edition American College of Radiology Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  18. N Karssemeijer JH Hendriks (1997) ArticleTitleComputer-assisted reading of mammograms. Eur Radiol 7 743–748 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA3M7ht1Q%3D Occurrence Handle9166576

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. JM Lewin RE Hendrick CJ D’Orsi et al. (2001) ArticleTitleComparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218 873–880 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3gs1Citw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11230669

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. G Prause JHCL Hendriks R Holland et al. (2003) ArticleTitleMammoTrainer—Computer-based training for soft-copy reading of mammograms on PC. in Digital Mammography IWDM 2002, Ed. Peitgen H.-O. Springer 2002 441–445

    Google Scholar 

  21. T Roelofs S Woudenbeg Particlevan J Hendriks et al. (2003) ArticleTitlePerformance of a digital reading station for screening mammography. IWDM 2002 455–459

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany

    Silvia Obenauer M.D., Klaus-Peter Hermann Ph.D., Katharina Marten M.D., Susanne Luftner-Nagel M.D., Dorit von Heyden M.D. & Eckhardt Grabbe M.D.

  2. Department of Radiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, Ullevaal, Norway

    Per Skaane M.D.

Authors
  1. Silvia Obenauer M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus-Peter Hermann Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katharina Marten M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Luftner-Nagel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dorit von Heyden M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Per Skaane M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eckhardt Grabbe M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Obenauer M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Obenauer, S., Hermann, KP., Marten, K. et al. Soft Copy versus Hard Copy Reading in Digital Mammography. J Digit Imaging 16, 341–344 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-003-1661-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-003-1661-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation