Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 618-622

  Liang, Zhigang ^a   Du, Xiangying ^a   Liu, Jiabin ^a   Yao, Xinyu ^a   Yang, Yanhui ^a   Li, Kuncheng ^a,b  

^a CAPITAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b NONE   (China)

Author keywords

Breast; Mammography; PACS

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CURVES (ROAD); DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PULSED LASER DEPOSITION;

BREAST CANCERS; BREAST MASSES; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITIZED IMAGES; DIGITIZED MAMMOGRAMS; DIGITIZER; FILM DIGITIZERS; FOUR POINT; MAMMOGRAPHY FILMS; MEDICAL IMAGES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC (ROC) CURVES; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY (SFM); SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPATIAL RESOLUTION (SR); STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TIME INTERVALS; UK LTD. (CO);

HEALTH;

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X RAY FILM;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 46149088285     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850802014610     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Gitlin JN, Narayan AK, Mitchell CA, Akmal AM, Eisner DJ, Peterson LM, et al A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations J Digit Imaging 2007;20:42-52
2. Pudas T, Korsoff L, Kallio T, Uhari M, Alanen A Influence of film digitization on radiological interpretation Br J Radiol 2005;78:993-6
3. Gitlin JN, Scott WW, Bell K, Narayan A Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer J Digit Imaging 2002; 15 Suppl 1:57-63
4. Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Barry MM, Ganobcik SN, Cardenosa G Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:889-94
5. Murphy JM, O'Hare NJ, Wheat D, McCarthy PA, Dowling A, Hayes R, et al Digitized mammograms: a preliminary clinical evaluation and the potential for telemammography J Telemed Telecare 1999;5: 193-7
6. Fajardo LL, Yoshino MT, Seeley GW, Hunt R, Hunter TB, Friedman R, et al Detection of breast abnormalities on teleradiology transmitted mammograms Invest Radiol 1990;25:1111-5
7. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-31
8. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Skaane P, et al Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography J Digit Imaging 2003;16:341-4
9. Parissis N, Kondylidou-Sidira A, Tsirlis A, Patias P Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs: image quality assessment Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:353-6
10. Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Sickles EA Digital mammography ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications Invest Radiol 1987;22:581-9