Literature DB >> 16132926

Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance.

Antonius A J Roelofs1, Sander van Woudenberg, Johannes D M Otten, Jan H C L Hendriks, Anke Bödicker, Carl J G Evertsz, Nico Karssemeijer.   

Abstract

Diagnostic performance and reading speed for conventional mammography film reading is compared to reading digitized mammograms on a dedicated workstation. A series of mammograms judged negative at screening and corresponding priors were collected. Half were diagnosed as cancer at the next screening, or earlier for interval cancers. The others were normal. Original films were read by fifteen experienced screening radiologists. The readers annotated potential abnormalities and estimated their likelihood of malignancy. More than 1 year later, five radiologists reread a subset of 271 cases (88 cancer cases having visible signs in retrospect and 183 normals) on a mammography workstation after film digitization. Markers from a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for microcalcifications were available to the readers. Performance was evaluated by comparison of A(z)-scores based on ROC and multiple-Reader multiple-case (MRMC) analysis, and localized receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis for the 271 cases. Reading speed was also determined. No significant difference in diagnostic performance was observed between conventional and soft-copy reading. Average A(z)-scores were 0.83 and 0.84 respectively. Soft-copy reading was only slightly slower than conventional reading. Using a mammography workstation including CAD for detection of microcalcifications, soft-copy reading is possible without loss of quality or efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16132926     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2878-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  16 in total

1.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype.

Authors:  S Vedantham; A Karellas; S Suryanarayanan; D Albagli; S Han; E J Tkaczyk; C E Landberg; B Opsahl-Ong; P R Granfors; I Levis; C J D'Orsi; R E Hendrick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.

Authors:  L J Warren Burhenne; S A Wood; C J D'Orsi; S A Feig; D B Kopans; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles; L Tabar; C J Vyborny; R A Castellino
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Bradley M Hemminger; Mary L Brown; R Eugene Johnston; Cherie M Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Rita I Freimanis; Mary Scott Soo; J A Baker; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Gray scale registration of mammograms using a model of image acquisition.

Authors:  Peter R Snoeren; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Inf Process Med Imaging       Date:  2003-07

5.  Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates.

Authors:  C A Roe; C E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation.

Authors:  C A Roe; C E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms.

Authors:  D Laming; R Warren
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms.

Authors:  Nico Karssemeijer; Johannes D M Otten; Andre L M Verbeek; Johanna H Groenewoud; Harry J de Koning; Jan H C L Hendriks; Roland Holland
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-02-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Paola Baldelli; Angelo Taibi; Cosimo Di Maggio; Mauro Gambaccini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Roelant Visser; Wouter J H Veldkamp; David Beijerinck; Petra A M Bun; Jan J M Deurenberg; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; Klaas H Schuur; Miranda M Snoeren; Gerard J den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 5.315

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.