Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography

Radiology

Volumn 251, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 41-49

  Nishikawa, Robert M ^a   Acharyya, Suddhasatta ^b   Gatsonis, Constantine ^b   Pisano, Etta D ^c   Cole, Elodia B ^c   Marques, Helga S ^b   D'Orsi, Carl J ^d   Farria, Dione M ^e   Kanal, Kalpana M ^f   Mahoney, Mary C ^g   Rebner, Murray ^h   Staiger, Melinda J ⁱ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^h WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONITOR; NORMAL HUMAN; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; X RAY FILM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA DISPLAY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 64949147235     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2511071462     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783.
2. Nishikawa RM, Mawdsley GE, Fenster A, Yaffe MJ. Scanned-projection digital mammography. Med Phys 1987;14:717-727. (Pubitemid 18021182)
3. Bick U, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, Nishikawa RM, Doi K. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. RadioGraphics 1996;16:1403-1411. (Pubitemid 126448190)
4. Byng JW, Critten JP, Yaffe MJ. Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 1997;203:564-568. (Pubitemid 27176239)
5. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:38-41.
6. Trambert M. Digital mammography integrated with PACS: real world issues, considerations, workflow solutions, and reading paradigms. Semin Breast Dis 2006;9:75-81. (Pubitemid 46186073)
7. Obuchowski NA. Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 1995;2(suppl 1):S22-S29.
8. Metz CE. ROCKIT. Chicago, Ill: Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 2007.
9. Obuchowski NA. Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs. Acad Radiol 1995;2:709-716.
10. Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Commun Statist Simulat 1995;24:285-308.
11. Hillis SL. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 2007;26:596-619. (Pubitemid 46139541)
12. Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Doi K, et al. Effect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes. Med Phys 1994;21:265-269.
13. Swets JA, Getty DJ, Pickett RM, D'Orsi CJ, Seltzer SE, McNeil BJ. Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Med Decis Making 1991;11:9-18.
14. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-213. (Pubitemid 26024757)
15. Jiang Y, Miglioretti DL, Metz CE, Schmidt RA. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements. Radiology 2007;243:360-367. (Pubitemid 46649690)
16. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. RadioGraphics 2000;20:1479-1491.