Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose was to compare observer performance in the detection of breast cancer using hard-copy film, and 3-megapixel (3-MP) and 5-megapixel (5-MP) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors in a simulated screening setting. We amassed 100 sample sets, including 32 patients with surgically proven breast cancer (masses present, N = 12; microcalcifications, N = 10; other types, N = 10) and 68 normal controls. All the mammograms were obtained using computed radiography (CR; sampling pitch of 50 μm). Twelve mammographers independently assessed CR mammograms presented in random order for hard-copy and soft-copy reading at minimal 4-week intervals. Observers rated the images on seven-point (1 to 7) and continuous (0 to 100) malignancy scales. Receiver-operating-characteristics analysis was performed, and the average area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each modality. The jackknife method with the Bonferroni correction was applied to multireader/multicase analysis. The average AUC values for the 3-MP LCD, 5-MP LCD, and hard-copy film were 0.954, 0.947, and 0.956 on the seven-point scale and 0.943, 0.923, and 0.944 on the continuous scale, respectively. There were no significant differences among the three modalities on either scale. Soft-copy reading using 3-MP and 5-MP LCDs is comparable to hard-copy reading for detecting breast cancer.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

3MP:

3-megapixel

5MP:

5-megapixel

LCD:

liquid crystal display

AUC:

area under the curve

DMIST:

Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

CR:

computed radiography

BI-RADS:

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

DICOM:

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine

GSDF:

greyscale standard display function

ROC:

receiver-operating characteristic

FFDM:

full-field digital mammography

References

  1. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Randomized trial in a population-based screening program–The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gitlin JN, Narayan AK, Mitchell CA et al (2007) A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations. J Digit Imaging 20:42–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HS, Han B, Choo K, Jeon YH, Kim J, Choe Y (2005) Screen-Film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: Comparison in the patients with microcalcification. Korean J Radiol 6:214–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ et al (2006) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. Am J Roentgenol 187:W576–W581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading- observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fishmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M (2005) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78:312–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Krug KB, Stutzer H, Girnus R et al (2007) Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Am J Roentgenol 188:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: Objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Ciatto S et al (2005) Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 55:258–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H et al (2007) 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. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Uematsu T, Kasami Y, Uchida Y (2007) Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 48:714–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: Comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Obennauer S, Hermann KP, Martern K et al (2003) Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zuley ML, Willison KM, Bonaccio E et al (2006) Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. Am J Roentgenol 187:1492–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saunders RS, Samiel E, Backer J et al (2006) Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol 13:1317–1326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brennan PC, McEntee M, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O’Connor WT, Manning DJ (2007) Ambient lighting: Effects of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wirst. Am J Roentgenol 188:W177–W180

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the important contributions of Drs. Furuta Akemi, Furuta Akihiko, Kakukawa Youichirou, Katayama Masami, Tsunoda Hiroko, Takehana Kyo, Kuchiki Megumi, Saitou Mioko, Kawai Ken, and Shimada Naoko. This study was supported by a grant from the Toshio Kurokawa Cancer Research Fund and constitutes one of the studies conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University, Graduate School of Medicine, 1–1 Seiryo-machi Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980–8574, Japan

    Takayuki Yamada & Shoki Takahashi

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Tohoku University, Graduate School of Medicine, 1–1 Seiryo-machi Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980–8574, Japan

    Akihiko Suzuki & Noriaki Ohuchi

  3. National Cancer Center, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, 5–1–1 Tsukiji Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104–0045, Japan

    Nachiko Uchiyama

Authors
  1. Takayuki Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akihiko Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nachiko Uchiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Noriaki Ohuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shoki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayuki Yamada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yamada, T., Suzuki, A., Uchiyama, N. et al. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. Eur Radiol 18, 2363–2369 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1016-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1016-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation