RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare two display technologies, cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD), in terms of diagnostic accuracy for several common clinical tasks in digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated masses and microcalcifications were inserted into normal digital mammograms to produce an image set of 400 images. Images were viewed on one CRT and one LCD medical-quality display device by five experienced breast-imaging radiologists who rated the images using a categorical rating paradigm. The observer data were analyzed to determine overall classification accuracy, overall lesion detection accuracy, and accuracy for four specific diagnostic tasks: detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses. RESULTS: Radiologists had similar overall classification accuracy (LCD: 0.83 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.82 +/- 0.01) and lesion detection accuracy (LCD: 0.87 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.85 +/- 0.01) on both displays. The difference in accuracy between LCD and CRT for the detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses was -0.019 +/- 0.009, 0.020 +/- 0.008, 0.012 +/- 0.013, and 0.0094 +/- 0.011, respectively. Overall, the two displays did not exhibit any statistically significant difference (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This study explored the suitability of two different soft-copy displays for the viewing of mammographic images. It found that LCD and CRT displays offer similar clinical utility for mammographic tasks.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare two display technologies, cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD), in terms of diagnostic accuracy for several common clinical tasks in digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated masses and microcalcifications were inserted into normal digital mammograms to produce an image set of 400 images. Images were viewed on one CRT and one LCD medical-quality display device by five experienced breast-imaging radiologists who rated the images using a categorical rating paradigm. The observer data were analyzed to determine overall classification accuracy, overall lesion detection accuracy, and accuracy for four specific diagnostic tasks: detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses. RESULTS: Radiologists had similar overall classification accuracy (LCD: 0.83 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.82 +/- 0.01) and lesion detection accuracy (LCD: 0.87 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.85 +/- 0.01) on both displays. The difference in accuracy between LCD and CRT for the detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses was -0.019 +/- 0.009, 0.020 +/- 0.008, 0.012 +/- 0.013, and 0.0094 +/- 0.011, respectively. Overall, the two displays did not exhibit any statistically significant difference (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This study explored the suitability of two different soft-copy displays for the viewing of mammographic images. It found that LCD and CRT displays offer similar clinical utility for mammographic tasks.
Authors: Francina Em Dams; K Y Esther Leung; Pieter Hm van der Valk; Marc Cjm Kock; Jeroen Bosman; Sjoerd P Niehof Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2014-10-31