Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The authors compare a 43-micron computed radiographic system with a mammographic screen-film system for detection of simulated microcalcifications in an observer-performance study. MATERIALS AND METHODS The task of detecting microcalcifications was simulated by imaging aluminum wire segments (200-500 microns in length; 100, 125, or 150 microns in diameter) that overlapped with tissue background structures produced by beef brisket. A total of 288 such simulations were generated and examined with both computed radiography and conventional screen-film mammography techniques. Computed radiography was performed with high-resolution plates, a 43-micron image reader, and a 43-micron laser film printer. Computed radiographic images were printed with simple contrast enhancement and compared with screen-film images in a receiver operating characteristic study in which experienced readers detected and scored the simulated microcalcifications. Observer performance was quantitated and compared by computing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS Although the resolution of the computed radiography system was better than that of commercial systems, it fell short of that of screen-film systems. For the 100-micron microcalcifications, the difference in the average area under the curve was not statistically significant, but it was significant for the larger simulated microcalcifications: the average area under the curve was 0.58 for computed radiography versus 0.76 for screen-film imaging for the 125-micron microcalcifications and 0.83 versus 1.00, respectively, for the 150-micron microcalcifications. CONCLUSION Observer performance in the detection of small simulated microcalcifications (100-150 microns in diameter) is better with screen-film images than with high-resolution computed radiographic images.

[1]  Phillip C. Bunch Objective imaging characteristics of mammographic screen-film systems , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[2]  S. Shapiro SCREENING FOR BREAST CANCER , 1985, The Lancet.

[3]  Y. Higashida,et al.  Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[4]  C Martinoli,et al.  Echotexture of peripheral nerves: correlation between US and histologic findings and criteria to differentiate tendons. , 1995, Radiology.

[5]  Yaffe Mj Direct digital mammography using a scanned-slot CCD imaging system. , 1993 .

[6]  J W Oestmann,et al.  A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications. , 1988, Investigative radiology.

[7]  Rainer Erlemann,et al.  Dr Erlemann responds , 1990 .

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

[9]  A R Cowen,et al.  Physical evaluation of computed radiography as a mammographic X-ray imaging system. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  A R Cowen,et al.  A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. , 1991, Medical physics.

[12]  H. Kitahama [Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer--comparison with film-screen mammography]. , 1991, Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai zasshi. Nippon acta radiologica.

[13]  C Kimme-Smith,et al.  Digital mammography. A comparison of two digitization methods. , 1989, Investigative radiology.