Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 12 , Pages 1509-1517, December 2009

Conspicuity of Microcalcifications on Digital Screening Mammograms Using Varying Degrees of Monitor Zooming

  • Tamara Miner Haygood, PhD, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: T.M.H.
  • ,
  • Elsa Arribas, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Patrick C. Brennan, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Care, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  • ,
  • E. Neely Atkinson, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Mark Herndon

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biology, Millsaps College, Jackson, MS
  • ,
  • Joseph Dieber, MD

      Affiliations

    • University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX
  • ,
  • William Geiser, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Lumarie Santiago, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Chadwick M. Mills, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Division, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • ,
  • Paul Davis, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Beatriz Adrada, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Selin Carkaci, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Tanya W. Stephens, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009
  • ,
  • Gary J. Whitman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1273, Houston, TX 77030-4009

Received 21 May 2009; accepted 13 June 2009.

Rationale and Objectives

American College of Radiology guidelines suggest that digital screening mammographic images should be viewed at the full resolution at which they were acquired. This slows interpretation speed. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of various levels of zooming on the detection and conspicuity of microcalcifications.

Materials and Methods

Six radiologists viewed 40 mammographic images five times in different random orders using five different levels of zooming: full resolution (100%) and 30%, 61%, 88%, and 126% of that size. Thirty-three images contained microcalcifications varying in subtlety, all associated with breast cancer. The clusters were circled. Seven images contained no malignant calcifications but also had randomly placed circles. The radiologists graded the presence or absence and visual conspicuity of any calcifications compared to calcifications in a reference image. They also counted the microcalcifications.

Results

The radiologists saw the microcalcifications in 94% of the images at 30% size and in either 99% or 100% of the other tested levels of zooming. Conspicuity ratings were worst for the 30% size and fairly similar for the others. Using the 30% size, two radiologists failed to see the microcalcifications on either the craniocaudal or mediolateral oblique view taken from one patient. Interobserver agreement regarding the number of calcifications was lowest for the 30% images and second lowest for the 100% images.

Conclusions

Images at 30% size should not be relied on alone for systematic scanning for microcalcifications. The other four levels of magnification all performed well enough to warrant further testing.

Key Words: Digital mammography, microcalcifications, soft-copy interpretation, monitor zooming

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1076-6332(09)00408-5

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.07.010

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 12 , Pages 1509-1517, December 2009