Literature DB >> 12511684

Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

Elodia B Cole1, Etta D Pisano, Emily O Kistner, Keith E Muller, Marylee E Brown, Stephen A Feig, Roberta A Jong, Andrew D A Maidment, Melinda J Staiger, Cherie M Kuzmiak, Rita I Freimanis, Nadine Lesko, Eric L Rosen, Ruth Walsh, Margaret Williford, M Patricia Braeuning.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12511684     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2261012024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  20 in total

1.  Evaluating the effect of a wavelet enhancement method in characterization of simulated lesions embedded in dense breast parenchyma.

Authors:  L Costaridou; S Skiadopoulos; P Sakellaropoulos; E Likaki; C P Kalogeropoulou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hans Roehrig; William Dallas; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Margarita Zuley; Janet K Baum; Helga S Marques
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  C Van Ongeval; H Bosmans; A Van Steen; K Joossens; V Celis; M Van Goethem; I Verslegers; K Nijs; F Rogge; G Marchal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-02       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.

Authors:  Mark B Williams; Priya Raghunathan; Mitali J More; J Anthony Seibert; Alexander Kwan; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Laurie L Fajardo; Allen McGruder; Sandra M McGruder; Andrew D A Maidment; Martin J Yaffe; Aili Bloomquist; Gordon E Mawdsley
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick; Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Helga Marques; Michael A Cohen; Roberta A Jong; Gordon E Mawdsley; Kalpana M Kanal; Carl J D'Orsi; Murray Rebner; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.

Authors:  F Zanca; C Van Ongeval; F Claus; J Jacobs; R Oyen; H Bosmans
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Cosimo Di Maggio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.