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: 2371041605v1 237/1/37    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 Skaane, P. Articles by Niklason, L. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Skaane, P. Articles by Niklason, L. T.

Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading—Observer Performance Study¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, Breast Imaging Center, Kirkeveien 166, N-0407 Oslo, Norway (P.S., K.Y.); Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France (C.B.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Charité, Berlin, Germany (F.D., S.D.); and Institut Imagerive, Geneva, Switzerland (J.C.P.); and private consultant, Milwaukee, Wis (L.T.N.). From the 2003 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received September 19, 2004; revision requested November 5; revision received January 24, 2005; accepted February 23. Address correspondence to P.S. (e-mail: per.skaane{at}ulleval.no).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer.

RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A_z) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A_z values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant.

CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A_z value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. B. Krug, H. Stutzer, R. Schroder, J. Boecker, J. Poggenborg, and K. Lackner Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast Phantom Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2008; 191(3): W80 - W88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur, A. I. Bandos, C. S. Cohen, C. M. Hakim, L. A. Hardesty, M. A. Ganott, R. L. Perrin, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, J. H. Sumkin, et al. The "Laboratory" Effect: Comparing Radiologists' Performance and Variability during Prospective Clinical and Laboratory Mammography Interpretations Radiology, August 5, 2008; (2008) 2491072025. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				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]

				D. Gur, A. I. Bandos, and H. E. Rockette Comparing Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: Potential Impact of the "Last" Experimentally Measured Operating Point Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 12 - 15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur Digital Mammography: Do We Need to Convert Now? Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 10 - 11. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. BRUSIN Digital Mammography: An Update Radiol. Technol., January 1, 2006; 77(3): 226M - 234M. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. D. Dershaw Film or digital mammographic screening? N. Engl. J. Med., October 27, 2005; 353(17): 1846 - 1847. [Full Text] [PDF]