Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 5/2014

01-10-2014

Evaluation of Low-Cost Telemammography Screening Configurations: A Comparison with Film-Screen Readings in Vulnerable Areas

Authors: Antonio J. Salazar, Javier Romero, Oscar Bernal, Angela Moreno, Sofía Velasco, Xavier Díaz

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for detecting breast cancer using different telemammography configurations, including combinations of both low-cost capture devices and consumer-grade color displays. At the same time, we compared each of these configurations to film-screen readings. This study used a treatment-by-reader-by-case factorial design. The sample included 70 mammograms with 34 malignant cases. The readers consisted of four radiologists who classified all of the cases according to the categories defined by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The evaluated capture devices included a specialized film digitizer and a digital camera, and the evaluated displays included liquid crystal display (LCD) and light-emitting diode (LED) consumer-grade color displays. Receiver operating characteristic curves, diagnostic accuracy (measured as the area under these curves), accuracy of the composition classification, sensitivity, specificity, and the degree of agreement between readers in the detection of malignant cases were also evaluated. Comparisons of diagnostic accuracy between film-screen and the different combinations of digital configurations showed no significant differences for nodules, calcifications, and asymmetries. In addition, no differences were observed in terms of sensibility or specificity when the degree of malignancy using the film-screen method was compared to that provided with digital configurations. Similar results were observed for the classification of breast composition. Furthermore, all observed reader agreements of malignant detection between film-screen and digital configurations were substantial. These findings indicate that the evaluated digital devices showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to the reference treatment (film-screen).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Smith RA, Caleffi M, Albert U-S, Chen THH, Duffy SW, Franceschi D, Nyström L: Breast Cancer in Limited-Resource Countries: Early Detection and Access to Care. Breast J 12:S16–S26, 2006PubMedCrossRef Smith RA, Caleffi M, Albert U-S, Chen THH, Duffy SW, Franceschi D, Nyström L: Breast Cancer in Limited-Resource Countries: Early Detection and Access to Care. Breast J 12:S16–S26, 2006PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Anderson BO, Braun S, Lim S, Smith RA, Taplin S, Thomas DB: Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Countries with Limited Resources. Breast J 9:S51–S59, 2003PubMedCrossRef Anderson BO, Braun S, Lim S, Smith RA, Taplin S, Thomas DB: Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Countries with Limited Resources. Breast J 9:S51–S59, 2003PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH: Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360, 2002PubMedCrossRef Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH: Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360, 2002PubMedCrossRef
6.
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: Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783, 2005PubMedCrossRef 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: Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783, 2005PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, Furuya A, Hatakenaka M, Ishii N, Honda H: 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. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371, 2007PubMedCrossRef Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, Furuya A, Hatakenaka M, Ishii N, Honda H: 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. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371, 2007PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Obenauer S, Hermann K-P, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D, Skaane P, Grabbe E: Soft Copy versus Hard Copy Reading in Digital Mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344, 2003PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Obenauer S, Hermann K-P, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D, Skaane P, Grabbe E: Soft Copy versus Hard Copy Reading in Digital Mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344, 2003PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Powell K, Obuchowski N, Chilcote W, Barry M, Ganobcik S, Cardenosa G: Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence. AJR 173:889–894, 1999PubMedCrossRef Powell K, Obuchowski N, Chilcote W, Barry M, Ganobcik S, Cardenosa G: Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence. AJR 173:889–894, 1999PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gitlin J, Narayan A, Mitchell C, Akmal A, Eisner D, Peterson L, Nie D, McClintock T: A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations. J Digit Imaging 20:42–52, 2007PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Gitlin J, Narayan A, Mitchell C, Akmal A, Eisner D, Peterson L, Nie D, McClintock T: A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations. J Digit Imaging 20:42–52, 2007PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R: Interpretation of digital mammograms: Comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488, 2002PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R: Interpretation of digital mammograms: Comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488, 2002PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hwang SA, Seo JB, Choi BK, Do KH, Ko SM, Lee SH, Lee JS, Song JW, Song KS, Lim TH: Liquid-crystal display monitors and cathode-ray tube monitors: A comparison of observer performance in the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules. Korean J Radiol 4:153–156, 2003PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Hwang SA, Seo JB, Choi BK, Do KH, Ko SM, Lee SH, Lee JS, Song JW, Song KS, Lim TH: Liquid-crystal display monitors and cathode-ray tube monitors: A comparison of observer performance in the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules. Korean J Radiol 4:153–156, 2003PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Park CM, Lee HJ, Goo JM, Han DH, Kim JH, Lim KY, Kim SH, Kang JJ, Kim KG, Lee CH, Chun EJ, Im JG: Comparison of observer performance on soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: High resolution liquid-crystal display monitors versus cathode-ray tube monitors. Eur J Radiol 66:13–18, 2008PubMedCrossRef Park CM, Lee HJ, Goo JM, Han DH, Kim JH, Lim KY, Kim SH, Kang JJ, Kim KG, Lee CH, Chun EJ, Im JG: Comparison of observer performance on soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: High resolution liquid-crystal display monitors versus cathode-ray tube monitors. Eur J Radiol 66:13–18, 2008PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Langer S, Fetterly K, Mandrekar J, Harmsen S, Bartholmai B, Patton C, Bishop A, McCannel C: ROC Study of Four LCD Displays Under Typical Medical Center Lighting Conditions. J Digit Imaging 19:30–40, 2006PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Langer S, Fetterly K, Mandrekar J, Harmsen S, Bartholmai B, Patton C, Bishop A, McCannel C: ROC Study of Four LCD Displays Under Typical Medical Center Lighting Conditions. J Digit Imaging 19:30–40, 2006PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P: Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology. J Digit Imaging 20:114–121, 2007PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P: Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology. J Digit Imaging 20:114–121, 2007PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference ACR: American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas), Reston, Va: ACR, 2003 ACR: American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas), Reston, Va: ACR, 2003
17.
go back to reference Salazar AJ, Romero J, Bernal O, Moreno A, Velasco S, Díaz X: Effects of the DICOM grayscale standard display function on the accuracy of medical-grade grayscale and consumer-grade color displays for telemammography screening. Proc. IX International Seminar on Medical Information Processing and Analysis: Mexico, November 19, 8922:89220R-89220R-89210, 2013 Salazar AJ, Romero J, Bernal O, Moreno A, Velasco S, Díaz X: Effects of the DICOM grayscale standard display function on the accuracy of medical-grade grayscale and consumer-grade color displays for telemammography screening. Proc. IX International Seminar on Medical Information Processing and Analysis: Mexico, November 19, 8922:89220R-89220R-89210, 2013
18.
go back to reference Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA: Comparison between different cost devices for digital capture of X-ray films with Computed Tomography (CT) correlation. Telemed J Health 14:275–282, 2011CrossRef Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA: Comparison between different cost devices for digital capture of X-ray films with Computed Tomography (CT) correlation. Telemed J Health 14:275–282, 2011CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA: Agreement and reading-time assessment of differently priced devices for digital capture of X-ray films. J Telemed Telecare 18:82–85, 2012PubMedCrossRef Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA: Agreement and reading-time assessment of differently priced devices for digital capture of X-ray films. J Telemed Telecare 18:82–85, 2012PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA, Ocampo J, Diaz XA: Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy on chest X-ray of the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function in Medical-grade Grayscale and Consumer-grade Color Displays. AJR In press, 2014 Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA, Ocampo J, Diaz XA: Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy on chest X-ray of the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function in Medical-grade Grayscale and Consumer-grade Color Displays. AJR In press, 2014
22.
go back to reference Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA, Ocampo J, Diaz XA: Diagnostic accuracy of digitized chest X-rays using consumer-grade color displays for low-cost teleradiology services. Telemed J Health 20:304–311, 2013CrossRef Salazar AJ, Camacho JC, Aguirre DA, Ocampo J, Diaz XA: Diagnostic accuracy of digitized chest X-rays using consumer-grade color displays for low-cost teleradiology services. Telemed J Health 20:304–311, 2013CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Salazar A, Aguirre D, Ocampo J, Camacho J, Díaz X: Evaluation of Three Pneumothorax Size Quantification Methods on Digitized Chest X-ray Films Using Medical-Grade Grayscale and Consumer-Grade Color Displays. J Digit Imaging 1–7, 2013 Salazar A, Aguirre D, Ocampo J, Camacho J, Díaz X: Evaluation of Three Pneumothorax Size Quantification Methods on Digitized Chest X-ray Films Using Medical-Grade Grayscale and Consumer-Grade Color Displays. J Digit Imaging 1–7, 2013
24.
go back to reference Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR: Clinical Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography for Detection of Breast Cancer. AJR 179:671–677, 2002PubMedCrossRef Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR: Clinical Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography for Detection of Breast Cancer. AJR 179:671–677, 2002PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Obuchowski NA: Sample Size Tables For Receiver Operating Characteristic Studies. AJR 175:603–608, 2000PubMedCrossRef Obuchowski NA: Sample Size Tables For Receiver Operating Characteristic Studies. AJR 175:603–608, 2000PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Roe CA, Metz CE: Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation. Acad Radiol 4:298–303, 1997PubMedCrossRef Roe CA, Metz CE: Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation. Acad Radiol 4:298–303, 1997PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174, 1977PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174, 1977PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Chen Y, Gale A: Mammographic Interpretation Training: How Could Low Cost Display Devices Help? Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010 Chen Y, Gale A: Mammographic Interpretation Training: How Could Low Cost Display Devices Help? Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010
30.
go back to reference Krupinski EA: Visual search of mammographic images: Influence of lesion subtlety. Acad Radiol 12:965–969, 2005PubMedCrossRef Krupinski EA: Visual search of mammographic images: Influence of lesion subtlety. Acad Radiol 12:965–969, 2005PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
go back to reference Fetterly K, Blume H, Flynn M, Samei E: Introduction to Grayscale Calibration and Related Aspects of Medical Imaging Grade Liquid Crystal Displays. J Digit Imaging 21:193–207, 2008PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Fetterly K, Blume H, Flynn M, Samei E: Introduction to Grayscale Calibration and Related Aspects of Medical Imaging Grade Liquid Crystal Displays. J Digit Imaging 21:193–207, 2008PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of Low-Cost Telemammography Screening Configurations: A Comparison with Film-Screen Readings in Vulnerable Areas
Authors
Antonio J. Salazar
Javier Romero
Oscar Bernal
Angela Moreno
Sofía Velasco
Xavier Díaz
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9695-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Journal of Digital Imaging 5/2014 Go to the issue