Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a commercially available postprocessing algorithm on the detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer by soft-copy reading.

Materials and methods

The study included 64 digital mammograms with 16 histologically proven abnormal findings (eight masses and eight microcalcifications) and 48 normal breasts. Two image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired using General Electric units. The commercially available advanced and standard postprocessed digital mammograms were evaluated in a localization receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve experiment involving seven mammography radiographers.

Results

The mean area under the ROC curve was 0.921 ± 0.022 for the commercially available advanced postprocessed digital mammograms session and 0.904 ± 0.026 for the standard postprocessed digital mammograms session (P = 0.1953). Observer agreement among the readers was better for the advanced postprocessed digital mammograms than for the standard postprocessed digital mammograms.

Conclusion

During soft-copy reading, the interpretation accuracy might be influenced by the postprocessing algorithm.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs LJ, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001;218:873–880.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Skaane P, Skjennald AS. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo 2 study. Radiology 2004;232:197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald AS. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo 2 study. Radiology 2007;244:708–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773–1783.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:38–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th edition. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cicchetti DV. Assessing interrater reliability for rating scales: resolving some basic issues. Br J Psychiatr 1976;129:452–456.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720–733.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723–731.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical composition of full field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:671–677.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Jiroutek MR, Muller KE, Zheng Y, et al. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:47–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabble E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability, and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697–1702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002;223:483–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pisano ED. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3:583–585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Day NE, Smith RA, Chen HH, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1755–1760.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, et al. American College of Radiology imaging network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236:404–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention, Breast Center and Department of Clinical Physiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Naga-Izumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Takayoshi Uematsu

Authors
  1. Takayoshi Uematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayoshi Uematsu.

About this article

Cite this article

Uematsu, T. Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography. Jap J Radiol 27, 168–175 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-009-0315-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-009-0315-6

Key words

Search

Navigation