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

PurposeThe 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 methodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionDuring soft-copy reading, the interpretation accuracy might be influenced by the postprocessing algorithm.

[1]  D V Cicchetti,et al.  Assessing Inter-Rater Reliability for Rating Scales: Resolving some Basic Issues , 1976, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[2]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions , 2002, European Radiology.

[3]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[5]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[6]  P. Skaane,et al.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. , 2007, Radiology.

[7]  L. Tabár,et al.  The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. , 2003, European journal of cancer.

[8]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[9]  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.

[10]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Constantine A Gatsonis,et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. , 2005, Radiology.

[12]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[13]  Yuanshui Zheng,et al.  Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Digital mammography: what next? , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[15]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[16]  Mary Scott Soo,et al.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. , 2002, Radiology.

[17]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[18]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[20]  D. Vanel.  The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.