Literature DB >> 18491108

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.

Takayuki Yamada1, Akihiko Suzuki, Nachiko Uchiyama, Noriaki Ohuchi, Shoki Takahashi.   

Abstract

The purpose was to compare observer performance in the detection of breast cancer using hard-copy film, and 3-megapixel (3-MP) and 5-megapixel (5-MP) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors in a simulated screening setting. We amassed 100 sample sets, including 32 patients with surgically proven breast cancer (masses present, N = 12; microcalcifications, N = 10; other types, N = 10) and 68 normal controls. All the mammograms were obtained using computed radiography (CR; sampling pitch of 50 mum). Twelve mammographers independently assessed CR mammograms presented in random order for hard-copy and soft-copy reading at minimal 4-week intervals. Observers rated the images on seven-point (1 to 7) and continuous (0 to 100) malignancy scales. Receiver-operating-characteristics analysis was performed, and the average area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each modality. The jackknife method with the Bonferroni correction was applied to multireader/multicase analysis. The average AUC values for the 3-MP LCD, 5-MP LCD, and hard-copy film were 0.954, 0.947, and 0.956 on the seven-point scale and 0.943, 0.923, and 0.944 on the continuous scale, respectively. There were no significant differences among the three modalities on either scale. Soft-copy reading using 3-MP and 5-MP LCDs is comparable to hard-copy reading for detecting breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18491108     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1016-8

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


  23 in total

1.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.

Authors:  T Uematsu; M Kasami; Y Uchida
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.990

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.  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

6.  Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value.

Authors:  Rita Bonardi; Daniela Ambrogetti; Stefano Ciatto; Elisabetta Gentile; Barbara Lazzari; Paola Mantellini; Enrica Nannelli; Elena Ristori; Laura Sottani; Marco Rosselli Del Turco
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2004-11-18       Impact factor: 3.528

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.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.

Authors:  Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Ciatto; Rita Bonardi; Francesca Martinelli; Barbara Lazzari; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  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

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.

Authors:  Sung Eun Song; Bo Kyoung Seo; An Yie; Bon Kyung Ku; Hee-Young Kim; Kyu Ran Cho; Hwan Hoon Chung; Seung Hwa Lee; Kyu-Won Hwang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  Technical and radiological image quality comparison of different liquid crystal displays for radiology.

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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.