Conspicuity of Microcalcifications on Digital Screening Mammograms Using Varying Degrees of Monitor Zooming

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1509-1517

  Haygood, Tamara Miner ^a   Arribas, Elsa ^a   Brennan, Patrick C ^b   Atkinson, E Neely ^a   Herndon, Mark ^c   Dieber, Joseph ^d   Geiser, William ^a   Santiago, Lumarie ^a   Mills, Chadwick M ^e   Davis, Paul ^a   Adrada, Beatriz ^a   Carkaci, Selin ^a   Stephens, Tanya W ^a   Whitman, Gary J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b University of Sydney   (Australia)

^c MILLSAPS COLLEGE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^e LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital mammography; microcalcifications; monitor zooming; soft copy interpretation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 70350449273     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.07.010     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/image_quality_digital_mammo.aspx. Accessed August 27, 2008.
2. Berns E.A., Hendrick R.E., Solari M., et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 38-41
3. Haygood T.M., Wang J., Atkinson E.N., et al. Timed efficiency of digital and film-screen screening mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192 (2009) 216-220
4. Landis J.R., and Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977) 159-174
5. Pisano E.D., Cole E.B., Kistner E.O., et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223 (2002) 483-488
6. Cole E., Pisano E.D., Brown M., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11 (2004) 879-886
7. Lewin J.M., D'Orsi C.J., Hendrick R.E., et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 671-677
8. Skaane P., Young K., and Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 229 (2003) 877-884
9. Skaane P., and Skjennald A. 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 (2004) 197-204
10. Hermann K.P., Obenauer S., Funke M., et al. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol 12 (2002) 2188-2191
11. Pisano E.D., Hendrick R.E., Yaffe M.J., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246 (2008) 376-383
12. Skaane P., Hofvind S., and Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244 (2007) 708-717
13. Del Turco M.R., Mantellini P., Ciatto S., et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189 (2007) 860-866
14. Haygood T.M., Wang J., Lane D., et al. Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation. J Digit Imaging (2009 Feb 13) [Epub ahead of print]
15. Krupinski E.A., Roehrig H., Dallas W., et al. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging 18 (2005) 311-315
16. Hendrick R.E., Cole E.B., Pisano E.D., et al. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology 247 (2008) 38-48
17. Kim H.H., Pisano E.D., Cole E.B., et al. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 47-50
18. Nodine C.F., Mello-Thoms C., Kundel H.L., et al. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 917-923
19. Oestmann J.W., Greene R., Bourgouin P.M., et al. Chest "gestalt" and detectability of lung lesions. Eur J Radiol 16 (1993) 154-157
20. Kundel H.L., Nodine C.F., Krupinski E.A., et al. Using gaze-tracking data and mixture distribution analysis to support a holistic model for the detection of cancers on mammograms. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 881-886
21. Zuley M.L., Willison K.M., Bonaccio E., et al. Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 1492-1498
22. Kim H.S., Han B.K., Choo K.S., et al. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol 6 (2005) 214-220
23. Taylor P.M. A review of research into the development of radiologic expertise: Implications for computer-based training. Acad Radiol 14 (2007) 1252-1263
24. Mello-Thoms C., Hardesty L., Sumkin J., et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol 12 (2005) 830-840
25. Saunders Jr. R.S., and Sameu E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys 35 (2008) 4464-4473
26. Chakraborty D.P. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 1554-1566