Literature DB >> 17093968

Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.

Takeshi Kamitani1, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Hiroyasu Soeda, Yoshio Matsuo, Takashi Okafuji, Shuji Sakai, Akio Furuya, Masamitsu Hatakenaka, Nobuhide Ishii, Hiroshi Honda.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare observer performance in the detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer among hard-copy reading and soft-copy readings using 3-megapixel (3M) and 5-megapixel (5M) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. For the microcalcification detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 40 surgically verified cancer cases and 60 normal cases. For the mass detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 50 cancer cases and 50 normal cases. After six readers assessed both microcalcifications and masses set for each modality, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. The average A(z)s for mass detection using a hard copy and 3M and 5M LCD monitors were 0.923, 0.927 and 0.920, respectively; there were no significant differences. The average A(z) for microcalcification detection using hard copy, 3M and 5M LCD monitors was 0.977, 0.954 and 0.972, respectively. There were no significant differences, but the P-values between the hard copy and 3M LCD monitor and that between the 3M and 5M LCD monitor were 0.08 and 0.09, respectively. In conclusion, the observer performances for detecting masses of breast cancers were comparable among the hard copy and two LCD monitors; however, soft-copy reading with a 3M LCD monitor showed slightly lower observer performance for detecting microcalcifications of breast cancers than hard-copy or 5M LCD monitor reading.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17093968     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0452-6

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


  16 in total

1.  Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions.

Authors:  Elisabeth Oschatz; Mathias Prokop; Martina Scharitzer; Michael Weber; Csilla Balassy; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-09-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: an observer preference study.

Authors:  Csilla Balassy; Mathias Prokop; Michael Weber; Johannes Sailer; Christian J Herold; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high-resolution cathode-ray tube monitors.

Authors:  Martina Scharitzer; Mathias Prokop; Michael Weber; Michael Fuchsjäger; Elisabeth Oschatz; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.

Authors:  Takayuki Yamada; Mioko Saito; Tadashi Ishibashi; Masahiro Tsuboi; Toshio Matsuhashi; Akihiro Sato; Haruo Saito; Shoki Takahashi; Koji Onuki; Noriaki Ouchi
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec

7.  Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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

9.  Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  12 in total

1.  Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

Authors:  Rianne Hupse; Maurice Samulski; Marc Lobbes; Ard den Heeten; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; David Beijerinck; Ruud Pijnappel; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Effect of greyscale liquid crystal displays of different resolutions on observer performance during detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  J Yin; Q Guo; W Zhang; H Su; J Zhang; Y Yue; C Ding; A Lin; Y Wang; H Wang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Preliminary investigation of the clinical usefulness of super-high-resolution LCDs with 9 and 15 mega-sub-pixels: observation studies with phantoms.

Authors:  Aya Nishimura; Katsuhiro Ichikawa; Yuko Mochiya; Ayumi Morishita; Hiroko Kawashima; Tomoyuki Yamamoto; Mikio Hasegawa; Naofumi Kimura; Shigeru Sanada
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2009-12-25

4.  Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Felix Diekmann; Corinne Balleyguier; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Michael Abdelnoor; Loren Niklason
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  LCD and CRT display of storage phosphor plate and limited cone beam computed tomography images for the evaluation of root canal fillings.

Authors:  B Güniz Baksi; Elif Soğur; Hans-Göran Gröndahl
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Observer study for evaluating potential utility of a super-high-resolution LCD in the detection of clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms.

Authors:  Junji Shiraishi; Hiroyuki Abe; Katsuhiro Ichikawa; Robert A Schmidt; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Evaluation of low-cost telemammography screening configurations: a comparison with film-screen readings in vulnerable areas.

Authors:  Antonio J Salazar; Javier Romero; Oscar Bernal; Angela Moreno; Sofía Velasco; Xavier Díaz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support.

Authors:  Maurice Samulski; Rianne Hupse; Carla Boetes; Roel D M Mus; Gerard J den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.

Authors:  Takayuki Yamada; Akihiko Suzuki; Nachiko Uchiyama; Noriaki Ohuchi; Shoki Takahashi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.