Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 6/2006

01-06-2006 | Breast

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial

Authors: C. Van Ongeval, H. Bosmans, A. Van Steen, K. Joossens, V. Celis, M. Van Goethem, I. Verslegers, K. Nijs, F. Rogge, G. Marchal

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine prospectively the diagnostic value of a computed radiography (CR) system by comparing mammographic hard copy images with screen–film mammography (SFM). A series of 100 patients, who came for diagnostic investigation, underwent two-view SFM (Lorad M-IV Platinum) and digital mammography with a CR system (AGFA CR system). The images were obtained by double exposure, i.e. same view without removing compression of the corresponding breast. The CR images were processed with dedicated processing for mammography. Six radiologists read sets of SFM and CR images. The primary efficacy parameter was the overall diagnostic value. The secondary efficacy parameters were lesion conspicuity and lesion details (for masses and micro-calcifications), tissue visibility at chest wall and at skin line, axillary details, overall density and sharpness impression and the overall noise impression. These parameters were scored by a 7-point scoring system. “CR non-inferior to SFM” was concluded if the lower confidence interval bound exceeded 80%. The confidence interval for the overall diagnostic value was between 96.4% and 100%. Pooled analysis of the ten features for image quality comparison demonstrated for all but one feature (lesion details of the calcifications) CR non-inferiority to SFM.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Yaffe MJ (2000) Digital mammography. In: Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL (eds) Handbook of medical imaging, physics and psychophysics, vol. 1. SPIE, Bellingham, WA Yaffe MJ (2000) Digital mammography. In: Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL (eds) Handbook of medical imaging, physics and psychophysics, vol. 1. SPIE, Bellingham, WA
3.
go back to reference Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998PubMedCrossRef Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (ACR) (2004) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia American College of Radiology (ACR) (2004) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia
5.
go back to reference Vuylsteke P, Schoeters E (1994) Multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA). Proc SPIE 2167:551–560CrossRef Vuylsteke P, Schoeters E (1994) Multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA). Proc SPIE 2167:551–560CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702PubMedCrossRef Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem- solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 226:153–160PubMedCrossRef Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem- solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 226:153–160PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, Jaffe MJ (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479–1491PubMed Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, Jaffe MJ (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479–1491PubMed
9.
go back to reference Lewin FM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs MF (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen–film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed Lewin FM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs MF (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen–film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed
10.
go back to reference Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen–film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—the Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen–film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—the Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen–film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology 232:197–204PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen–film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology 232:197–204PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, van Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen–film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMed Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, van Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen–film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMed
13.
go back to reference Matzek WK, Pfarf G (2004) Digital storage phosphor mammography versus direct full field digital mammography for detection of breast cancer. Eur Radiol ECR report B-036, ECR 2004. Vol 14 Suppl 2, Feb 2004 Matzek WK, Pfarf G (2004) Digital storage phosphor mammography versus direct full field digital mammography for detection of breast cancer. Eur Radiol ECR report B-036, ECR 2004. Vol 14 Suppl 2, Feb 2004
14.
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 M (2005) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Quam JP, Ackerman SJ (2003) Conspicuity and characterization of findings on computed radiography for mammography vs screen–film mammography: results from a prospective clinical trial. RSNA report no. 544 Quam JP, Ackerman SJ (2003) Conspicuity and characterization of findings on computed radiography for mammography vs screen–film mammography: results from a prospective clinical trial. RSNA report no. 544
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial
Authors
C. Van Ongeval
H. Bosmans
A. Van Steen
K. Joossens
V. Celis
M. Van Goethem
I. Verslegers
K. Nijs
F. Rogge
G. Marchal
Publication date
01-06-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2006
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0134-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2006

European Radiology 6/2006 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Reply of Editor-in-Chief