Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2007

01-03-2007

A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations

Authors: Joseph N. Gitlin, D.P.H., Anand K. Narayan, B.A., Chad A. Mitchell, Ph.D., Ali M. Akmal, B.A., David J. Eisner, M.D., Lindsy M. Peterson, Daisy Nie, Tyler R. McClintock

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

An acceptable mammography film digitizer must provide high-quality images at a level of diagnostic accuracy comparable to reading conventional film examinations. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant differences between the interpretations of conventional film-screen mammography examinations and soft copy readings of the images produced by a mammography film digitizer. Eight radiologists interpreted 120 mammography examinations, half as original films and the other half as digital images on a soft copy work station. No radiologist read the same examination twice. The interpretations were recorded in accordance with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and included other variables such as perceived image quality and diagnostic difficulty and confidence. The results provide support for the hypothesis that there are no significant differences between the interpretations of conventional film-screen mammography examinations and soft copy examinations produced by a mammography film digitizer.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, Yaffe, M, Baum, JK, Acharyya, S, Conant, EF, Fajardo, LL, Bassett, L, D’Orsi, C, Jong, R, Rebner, R 2005Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screeningN Engl J Med35317731783PubMedCrossRef Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, Yaffe, M, Baum, JK, Acharyya, S, Conant, EF, Fajardo, LL, Bassett, L, D’Orsi, C, Jong, R, Rebner, R 2005Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screeningN Engl J Med35317731783PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ackerman, SJ, Gitlin, JN, Gayler, RW, Flagle, CD, Bryan, RN 1993Receiver operating characteristic analysis of fracture and pneumonia detection: comparison of laser-digitized workstation images and conventional analog radiographsRadiology186263268PubMed Ackerman, SJ, Gitlin, JN, Gayler, RW, Flagle, CD, Bryan, RN 1993Receiver operating characteristic analysis of fracture and pneumonia detection: comparison of laser-digitized workstation images and conventional analog radiographsRadiology186263268PubMed
3.
go back to reference Eng, J, Mysko, WK, Weller, GE, Renard, R, Gitlin, JN, Bluemke, DA, Magid, D, Kelen, GD, Scott, WW,Jr. 2000Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital displayAJR Am J Roentgenol17512331238PubMed Eng, J, Mysko, WK, Weller, GE, Renard, R, Gitlin, JN, Bluemke, DA, Magid, D, Kelen, GD, Scott, WW,Jr. 2000Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital displayAJR Am J Roentgenol17512331238PubMed
4.
go back to reference Curtis, DJ, Gayler, BW, Gitlin, JN, Harrington, MB 1983Teleradiology: results of a field trialRadiology149415418PubMed Curtis, DJ, Gayler, BW, Gitlin, JN, Harrington, MB 1983Teleradiology: results of a field trialRadiology149415418PubMed
5.
go back to reference Scott, WW,Jr., Rosenbaum, JE, Ackerman, SJ, Reichle, RL, Magid, D, Weller, JC, Gitlin, JN 1993Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretationRadiology187811815PubMed Scott, WW,Jr., Rosenbaum, JE, Ackerman, SJ, Reichle, RL, Magid, D, Weller, JC, Gitlin, JN 1993Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretationRadiology187811815PubMed
6.
go back to reference Krupinski, E, Gonzales, M, Gonzales, C, Weinstein, RS 2000Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applicationsTelemed J E Health6297302PubMedCrossRef Krupinski, E, Gonzales, M, Gonzales, C, Weinstein, RS 2000Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applicationsTelemed J E Health6297302PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Smathers, RL, Bush, E, Drace, J, Stevens, M, Sommer, FG, Brown, BW,Jr., Karras, B 1986Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film displayRadiology159673677PubMed Smathers, RL, Bush, E, Drace, J, Stevens, M, Sommer, FG, Brown, BW,Jr., Karras, B 1986Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film displayRadiology159673677PubMed
8.
go back to reference Mannino, DM, Kennedy, RD, Hodous, TK 1993Pneumoconiosis: comparison of digitized and conventional radiographsRadiology187791796PubMed Mannino, DM, Kennedy, RD, Hodous, TK 1993Pneumoconiosis: comparison of digitized and conventional radiographsRadiology187791796PubMed
9.
go back to reference Gitlin, JN, Scott, WW, Bell, K, Narayan, A 2002Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizerJ Digit Imaging155763PubMedCrossRef Gitlin, JN, Scott, WW, Bell, K, Narayan, A 2002Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizerJ Digit Imaging155763PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Obuchowski, NA 2000Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studiesAJR Am J Roentgenol175603608PubMed Obuchowski, NA 2000Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studiesAJR Am J Roentgenol175603608PubMed
11.
go back to reference American College of Radiology2003American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas)ACRReston, VA American College of Radiology2003American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas)ACRReston, VA
12.
go back to reference American College of Radiology2004ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Screening Mammography, ACR Practice Guidelines—Screening MammographyACRReston, VA317328 American College of Radiology2004ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Screening Mammography, ACR Practice Guidelines—Screening MammographyACRReston, VA317328
13.
go back to reference Applegate, KE, Tello, R, Ying, J 2003Hypothesis testing III: counts and mediansRadiology228603608PubMed Applegate, KE, Tello, R, Ying, J 2003Hypothesis testing III: counts and mediansRadiology228603608PubMed
14.
go back to reference Langlotz, CP 2003Fundamental measures of diagnostic examination performance: usefulness for clinical decision making and researchRadiology22839PubMed Langlotz, CP 2003Fundamental measures of diagnostic examination performance: usefulness for clinical decision making and researchRadiology22839PubMed
15.
go back to reference Obuchowski, NA 2003Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiologyRadiology22938PubMed Obuchowski, NA 2003Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiologyRadiology22938PubMed
16.
go back to reference Metz, CE, Herman, BA, Roe, CA 1998Statistical comparison of two ROC estimates obtained from partially-paired datasetsMed Decis Making18110PubMedCrossRef Metz, CE, Herman, BA, Roe, CA 1998Statistical comparison of two ROC estimates obtained from partially-paired datasetsMed Decis Making18110PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kundel, H, Polansky, M 2003Measurement of observer agreementRadiology228303308PubMed Kundel, H, Polansky, M 2003Measurement of observer agreementRadiology228303308PubMed
18.
go back to reference Gitlin, JN, Cook, LL, Linton, OW, Garrett-Mayer, E 2004Comparison of “B” readers’ interpretations of chest radiographs for asbestos related changesAcad Radiol11843856PubMedCrossRef Gitlin, JN, Cook, LL, Linton, OW, Garrett-Mayer, E 2004Comparison of “B” readers’ interpretations of chest radiographs for asbestos related changesAcad Radiol11843856PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Morton, MJ, Whaley, DH, Brandt, KR, Amrami, KK 2006Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection—prospective evaluationRadiology239375PubMed Morton, MJ, Whaley, DH, Brandt, KR, Amrami, KK 2006Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection—prospective evaluationRadiology239375PubMed
20.
go back to reference Kallergi, M, Lucier, BJ, Berman, CG, Hersh, MR, Kim, JJ, Szabunio, MS, Clark, RA 2006High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluationRadiology2386273PubMed Kallergi, M, Lucier, BJ, Berman, CG, Hersh, MR, Kim, JJ, Szabunio, MS, Clark, RA 2006High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluationRadiology2386273PubMed
Metadata
Title
A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations
Authors
Joseph N. Gitlin, D.P.H.
Anand K. Narayan, B.A.
Chad A. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Ali M. Akmal, B.A.
David J. Eisner, M.D.
Lindsy M. Peterson
Daisy Nie
Tyler R. McClintock
Publication date
01-03-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 1/2007
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-006-1046-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2007 Go to the issue