HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2261012024v1 226/1/153    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cole, E. B. Articles by Braeuning, M. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cole, E. B. Articles by Braeuning, M. P.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts Who Underwent Problem-solving Mammography: Effects of Image Processing and Lesion Type¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, 507 Old Infirmary, CB 7510, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510 (E.D.P.). The complete list of authors’ affiliations and the author contributions are at the end of this article. Received December 10, 2001; revision requested February 18, 2002; revision received April 18; accepted May 24. Supported by grant 282-97-0078 from the Office of Women’s Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Address correspondence to E.D.P. (e-mail: etpisano@med.unc.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist’s performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used.

RESULTS: Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P = .0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P < .0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images.

CONCLUSION: Findings in this study indicate that radiologist’s interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast radiography, comparative studies, 00.112, 00.1215 • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance, 00.112, 00.1215 • Images, processing, 00.112, 00.1215 • Radiography, digital, 00.1215 • Screens and films, 00.112

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. E. Hendrick, E. B. Cole, E. D. Pisano, S. Acharyya, H. Marques, M. A. Cohen, R. A. Jong, G. E. Mawdsley, K. M. Kanal, C. J. D'Orsi, et al. Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 38 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Karahaliou, S Skiadopoulos, I Boniatis, P Sakellaropoulos, E Likaki, G Panayiotakis, and L Costaridou Texture analysis of tissue surrounding microcalcifications on mammograms for breast cancer diagnosis Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 648 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Skaane, L. Niklason, and N. A. Obuchowski Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis: A Proper Measurement for Performance in Breast Cancer Screening? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 579 - 580. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Schueller, E. Kaindl, W. K. Matzek, F. Semturs, C. Schueller-Weidekamm, and T. H. Helbich Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 38 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Skaane, C. Balleyguier, F. Diekmann, S. Diekmann, J.-C. Piguet, K. Young, and L. T. Niklason Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading--Observer Performance Study Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 37 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Mahesh AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Digital Mammography: An Overview RadioGraphics, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 1747 - 1760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]