The effect of digitising film prior mammograms on radiologists' performance in breast screening: a JAFROC study

After the introduction of digital mammography the film mammograms from the previous screening round (the prior mammograms) can be displayed in a variety of ways. This paper investigates the performance of radiologists reading digital screening mammograms with the prior mammograms displayed either as film or in digitised format. A set of 162 cases was assembled, each with two view digital mammograms and two view film prior mammograms. Of these cases 66 were malignant as proven by biopsy, and the others were normal or benign. The film prior mammograms were digitised at 75μm. Eight participants, with four to seventeen years experience of reading screening mammograms, each read the mammograms twice; once with the digitised prior mammograms displayed on the digital workstation, and once with the film prior mammograms displayed on an adjacent multi-viewer. The two viewings were at least one month apart. Participants marked the location of abnormalities on a paper copy of the mammograms and rated the probability of malignancy of each abnormality. Participants were video-taped whilst reading the cases to enable analysis of gross eye movements for information regarding the level of use of the prior mammograms. JAFROC analysis showed no difference in performance between the conditions.

[1]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Comparison of digital and conventional mammography: a ROC study of 270 mammograms. , 1992, Medical informatics = Medecine et informatique.

[2]  M. G. Wallis,et al.  Mammography workstation design: effect on mammographer behaviour and the risk of musculoskeletal disorders , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[3]  M Ruschin,et al.  Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[5]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. , 2007, Radiology.

[6]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[7]  H. Honda,et al.  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 , 2007, European Radiology.

[8]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  P. Skaane,et al.  Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading , 2008, European Radiology.

[10]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[11]  David Gur,et al.  Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[12]  Helen C. Cowley,et al.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  K L Lam,et al.  Digitization requirements in mammography: effects on computer-aided detection of microcalcifications. , 1994, Medical physics.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.