Top

Published in:

01-01-2006 | Breast

Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance

Authors: Antonius A. J. Roelofs, Sander van Woudenberg, Johannes D. M. Otten, Jan H. C. L. Hendriks, Anke Bödicker, Carl J. G. Evertsz, Nico Karssemeijer

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2006

Abstract

Diagnostic performance and reading speed for conventional mammography film reading is compared to reading digitized mammograms on a dedicated workstation. A series of mammograms judged negative at screening and corresponding priors were collected. Half were diagnosed as cancer at the next screening, or earlier for interval cancers. The others were normal. Original films were read by fifteen experienced screening radiologists. The readers annotated potential abnormalities and estimated their likelihood of malignancy. More than 1 year later, five radiologists reread a subset of 271 cases (88 cancer cases having visible signs in retrospect and 183 normals) on a mammography workstation after film digitization. Markers from a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for microcalcifications were available to the readers. Performance was evaluated by comparison of A_z-scores based on ROC and multiple-Reader multiple-case (MRMC) analysis, and localized receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis for the 271 cases. Reading speed was also determined. No significant difference in diagnostic performance was observed between conventional and soft-copy reading. Average A_z-scores were 0.83 and 0.84 respectively. Soft-copy reading was only slightly slower than conventional reading. Using a mammography workstation including CAD for detection of microcalcifications, soft-copy reading is possible without loss of quality or efficiency.

Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed

Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488PubMed

van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JHCL (2003) Optimized perception of lesion growth in mammograms using digital display. In: Chakraborty DP, Krupinski EA (eds) Proceedings of SPIE, Medical Imaging 2003, Image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment, vol. 5034, SPIE, Bellingham, WA, pp 25–31

van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Hendriks JHCL, Karssemeijer N (2003) A comparison of methods for mammogram registration. In: Pluim JPW and Fitzpatrick JM (eds) Special issue on image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imag 22(11):1436–1444CrossRef

Snoeren PR, Karssemeijer N (2003) Gray scale registration of mammograms using a model of image acquisition. In: Taylor C and Noble J (eds) Lect Notes Comp Sc 2732 pp 401–412

Laming D, Warren R (2000) Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. J Med Screen 7:24–30CrossRefPubMed

Evertsz CJG, Karssemeijer N, Bödicker A et al (2003) SCREEN-TRIAL: softcopy reading in European screening mammography. In: Peitgen H-O (ed) Digital mammography, IWDM 2002, 6th International workshop on digital mammography. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 423–427

Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMed

Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, Groenewoud JH et al (2003) National Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening in the Netherlands, 10th evaluation report, Rotterdam

10.

Evertsz CJG, Bödicker A, Roelofs AAJ et al (2002) Softcopy reading in screening mammography: European projects SCREEN and SCREEN-TRIAL. Electromedica 70:157–164

11.

NEMA (1998) Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) supplement 28: grayscale standard display function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, USA

12.

Roelofs AAJ, van Woudenberg S, Hendriks JHCL, Karssemeijer N (2003) Optimized soft-copy display of digitized mammograms. In: Chakraborty DP, Krupinski EA (eds) Proceedings of SPIE, Medical Imaging 2003, Image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment, vol. 5034. SPIE, Bellingham, WA, USA, pp 10–19

13.

Swensson RG (1996) Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys 23:1709–1725CrossRefPubMed

14.

Karssemeijer N, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM et al (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 227:192–200PubMed

15.

Burhenne LJW, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ et al (2000) Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562PubMed

16.

Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) ROC rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and cases with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731PubMed

17.

Roe CA, Metz CE (1997) The Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method for statistical analysis of multi-reader, multi-modality ROC data: validation by computer simulation. Acad Radiol 4:298–303PubMed

18.

Roe CA, Metz CE (1997) Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. Acad Radiol 4:587–600PubMed

19.

Quenouille MH (1949) Approximate tests of correlation in time series. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B 11:68–84

20.

Tukey JW (1958) Bias and confidence in not quite large samples. Ann Math Stat 29:614. Abstract

21.

http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL_ROC/software_index.htm. Charles E. Metz, University of Chicago, version 1.3 beta 1

22.

Karssemeijer N, Frieling JT, Hendriks JHCL (1993) Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 28:413–419PubMed

23.

Freedman MT, Steller DE, Jafroudi H et al (1995) Digital mammography: tradeoffs between 50- and 100-micron pixel size. In: van Metter RL, Beutel J (eds) Proceedings of SPIE, Medical imaging 1995, Physics of medical imaging, vol. 2432. SPIE, San Diego, CA, pp 114–125

24.

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S et al (2000) Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 27:558–567CrossRefPubMed

25.

Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14(11):1990–1998CrossRefPubMed

26.

Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M (2004) Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 14(4):645–652CrossRefPubMed

Title: Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance
Authors: Antonius A. J. Roelofs
Sander van Woudenberg
Johannes D. M. Otten
Jan H. C. L. Hendriks
Anke Bödicker
Carl J. G. Evertsz
Nico Karssemeijer
Publication date: 01-01-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2878-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

Detection of residual tumor after radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis with dual-modality PET/CT: initial results

Endovascular obliteration of bleeding duodenal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis

Fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity measurements on normal human brain: comparison between low- and high-resolution diffusion tensor imaging sequences

Detection of focal renal perfusion defects in rabbits after sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubble injection at low transmission power ultrasound insonation

Assessment of reproducibility and stability of different breath-hold maneuvres by dynamic MRI: comparison between healthy adults and patients with pulmonary hypertension

Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography of patients using a standard clinical scanner