Literature DB >> 18301902

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

Per Skaane1, Felix Diekmann, Corinne Balleyguier, Susanne Diekmann, Jean-Charles Piguet, Kari Young, Michael Abdelnoor, Loren Niklason.   

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18301902     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0

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


  28 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  A goodness-of-fit approach to inference procedures for the kappa statistic: confidence interval construction, significance-testing and sample size estimation.

Authors:  A Donner; M Eliasziw
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  P Skaane; A Skjennald; K Young; E Egge; I Jebsen; E M Sager; B Scheel; E Søvik; A K Ertzaas; S Hofvind; M Abdelnoor
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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.

Authors:  Takeshi Kamitani; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Hiroyasu Soeda; Yoshio Matsuo; Takashi Okafuji; Shuji Sakai; Akio Furuya; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Nobuhide Ishii; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  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

10.  Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.

Authors:  Deborah H Glueck; Molly M Lamb; John M Lewin; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  4 in total

1.  Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content.

Authors:  Georgia Tourassi; Sophie Voisin; Vincent Paquit; Elizabeth Krupinski
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Can Radiologists Predict the Presence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Chris I Flowers; Christine E McLaren; Dorota J Wisner; Jade de Guzman; Joan E Campbell; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Karen Gerlach; Jonathan Hargreaves; Sarah L Elson; Hanna Retallack; Bonnie N Joe; Stephen A Feig; Colin J Wells
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  Anna Liza M Antonio; Catherine M Crespi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.