HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2232010704v1 223/2/483    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pisano, E. D. Articles by Walsh, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pisano, E. D. Articles by Walsh, R.

Interpretation of Digital Mammograms: Comparison of Speed and Accuracy of Soft-Copy versus Printed-Film Display¹

¹ From the Dept of Radiology (E.D.P., E.B.C., B.M.H., M.L.B., R.E.J., C.M.K.) and UNC-Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Ctr (E.D.P., E.B.C., M.L.B.), Univ of North Carolina School of Med, 101 Manning Dr, 515 Old Infirmary, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7510; Dept of Biostatistics, Univ of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill (E.O.K., K.E.M.); Dept of Radiology, Christ Hosp, Cincinnati, Ohio (M.P.B.); Dept of Radiology, Wake Forest Univ School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC (R.I.F.); and Dept of Radiology, Duke Univ School of Med, Durham, NC (M.S.S., J.A.B., R.W.). From the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received Mar 29, 2001; revision requested May 23; revision received Oct 4; accepted Nov 12. Supported in part by Department of Defense Grant 5-36845, "Evaluation of Digital Mammography Display." Address correspondence to E.D.P. (e-mail: etta_pisano@med.unc.edu).

PURPOSE: To compare the speed and accuracy of the interpretations of digital mammograms by radiologists by using printed-film versus soft-copy display.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: After being trained in interpretation of digital mammograms, eight radiologists interpreted 63 digital mammograms, all with old studies for comparison. All studies were interpreted by all readers in soft-copy and printed-film display, with interpretations of images in the same cases at least 1 month apart. Mammograms were interpreted in cases that included six biopsy-proved cancers and 20 biopsy-proved benign lesions, 20 cases of probably benign findings in patients who underwent 6-month follow-up, and 17 cases without apparent findings. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A_z), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for soft-copy and printed-film display.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the speed of interpretation, but interpretations with soft-copy display were slightly faster. The differences in A_z, sensitivity, and specificity were not significantly different; A_z and sensitivity were slightly better for interpretations with printed film, and specificity was slightly better for interpretations with soft copy.

CONCLUSION: Interpretation with soft-copy display is likely to be useful with digital mammography and is unlikely to significantly change accuracy or speed.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast radiography, 00.112 • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance • Images, display • Radiography, digital, 00.1215 • Screens and films, 00.112

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. M. Haygood, J. Wang, E. N. Atkinson, D. Lane, T. W. Stephens, P. Patel, and G. J. Whitman Timed Efficiency of Interpretation of Digital and Film-Screen Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 216 - 220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. B. Krug, H. Stutzer, R. Schroder, J. Boecker, J. Poggenborg, and K. Lackner Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast Phantom Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2008; 191(3): W80 - W88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Hendrick, E. B. Cole, E. D. Pisano, S. Acharyya, H. Marques, M. A. Cohen, R. A. Jong, G. E. Mawdsley, K. M. Kanal, C. J. D'Orsi, et al. Accuracy of Soft-Copy Digital Mammography versus That of Screen-Film Mammography according to Digital Manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST Retrospective Multireader Study Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 38 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Van Ongeval, A. Van Steen, and H. Bosmans Teaching syllabus for radiological aspects of breast cancer screening with digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 191 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Berns, R. E. Hendrick, M. Solari, L. Barke, D. Reddy, J. Wolfman, L. Segal, P. DeLeon, S. Benjamin, and L. Willis Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 38 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. H. Kim, E. D. Pisano, E. B. Cole, M. R. Jiroutek, K. E. Muller, Y. Zheng, C. M. Kuzmiak, and M. A. Koomen Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 47 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. V. Ongeval, H. Bosmans, and A. Van Steen Current challenges of full field digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 148 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Penedo, M. Souto, P. G. Tahoces, J. M. Carreira, J. Villalon, G. Porto, C. Seoane, J. J. Vidal, K. S. Berbaum, D. P. Chakraborty, et al. Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Evaluation of Lossy JPEG2000 and Object-based Set Partitioning in Hierarchical Trees Compression of Digitized Mammograms Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 450 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. D. Pisano and M. J. Yaffe Digital Mammography Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 353 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Skaane and A. Skjennald 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, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]