Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

PURPOSE To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist's performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P =.0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P <.0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images. CONCLUSION Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.

[1]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. , 1993, Radiology.

[2]  E A Sickles,et al.  Mammographic detectability of breast microcalcifications. , 1982, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 3rd ed. , 1998 .

[5]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. , 2000, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[6]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[8]  S. Feig,et al.  The importance of supplementary mammographic views to diagnostic accuracy. , 1988, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  R. Kirk Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[10]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Radiologists’ Preferences for Digital Mammographic Display , 2000 .

[11]  J. Elmore,et al.  Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[13]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1998, Radiology.

[14]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. , 1990, Radiology.

[15]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[16]  F. Shtern Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. , 1992, Radiology.

[17]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[18]  R Holland,et al.  Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[19]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). , 1995 .

[20]  E. Pisano,et al.  Current status of full-field digital mammography. , 2000, Radiology.