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.

References 

  1. American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/image_quality_digital_mammo.aspx. Accessed August 27, 2008.
  2. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:38–41
  3. Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al. Timed efficiency of digital and film-screen screening mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:216–220
  4. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  5. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002;223:483–488
  6. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol. 2004;11:879–886
  7. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671–677
  8. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229:877–884
  9. Skaane P, Skjennald A. 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. 2004;232:197–204
  10. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, et al. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol. 2002;12:2188–2191
  11. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376–383
  12. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology. 2007;244:708–717
  13. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:860–866
  14. Haygood TM, Wang J, Lane D, et al. Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation. J Digit Imaging. 2009 Feb 13;[Epub ahead of print]
  15. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, et al. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging. 2005;18:311–315
  16. Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, et al. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology. 2008;247:38–48
  17. Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, et al. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:47–50
  18. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, et al. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:917–923
  19. Oestmann JW, Greene R, Bourgouin PM, et al. Chest “gestalt” and detectability of lung lesions. Eur J Radiol. 1993;16:154–157
  20. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA, et al. Using gaze-tracking data and mixture distribution analysis to support a holistic model for the detection of cancers on mammograms. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:881–886
  21. Zuley ML, Willison KM, Bonaccio E, et al. Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1492–1498
  22. Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, et al. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol. 2005;6:214–220
  23. Taylor PM. A review of research into the development of radiologic expertise: Implications for computer-based training. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:1252–1263
  24. Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:830–840
  25. Saunders RS, Sameu E. The effect of breast compression on mass conspicuity in digital mammography. Med Phys. 2008;35:4464–4473
  26. Chakraborty DP. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1554–1566

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

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution