Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography

Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of breast density on the performance of radiologists when mammograms are digitally acquired and displayed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 150 craniocaudal digital mammograms including 75 cases with cancer were examined by 14 radiologists divided into two groups: those who read more (six) and less (eight) than 2000 mammograms per year. Cases were classified as low or high mammographic density. For both types of cases, detection of cancers within and outside the dense fibroglandular tissue was investigated. The performance of radiologist was measured using jack-knife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM).

RESULTS

Radiologists with over 2000 annual reads had significantly higher JAFROC FOM (P = .03) for high (0.76) mammographic density compared to low (0.70) mammographic density cases. When lesions overlaid the fibroglandular tissue, cases with high mammographic density compared to low mammographic density displayed increased location sensitivity for all radiologists (P = .03) and for those radiologists reading more than 2000 mammograms annually (P = .04), whereas JAFROC FOMs increased for all radiologists (P = .05). No significant changes were observed when the lesion was outside the fibroglandular region.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased mammographic density improves the performance of experienced radiologists when using digital mammograms. This finding, which does not align with those previously reported for film screen systems, may be because of windowing/leveling opportunities available with digital images.

Evaluation of low-cost telemammography screening configurations: a comparison with film-screen readings in vulnerable areas

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).

Hardcopy quality parameters to ensure structures detection at digital mammography

Objective To develop procedures to ensure consistency of printing quality of digital images, by means of hardcopy quantitative analysis based on a standard image. Materials and Methods Characteristics of mammography DI-ML and general purpose DI-HL films were studied through the QC-Test utilizing different processing techniques in a FujiFilm®-DryPix4000 printer. A software was developed for sensitometric evaluation, generating a digital image including a gray scale and a bar pattern to evaluate contrast and spatial resolution. Results Mammography films showed maximum optical density of 4.11 and general purpose films, 3.22. The digital image was developed with a 33-step wedge scale and a high-contrast bar pattern (1 to 30 lp/cm) for spatial resolution evaluation. Conclusion Mammographic films presented higher values for maximum optical density and contrast resolution as compared with general purpose films. The utilized digital processing technique could only change the image pixels matrix values and did not affect the printing standard. The proposed digital image standard allows greater control of the relationship between pixels values and optical density obtained in the analysis of films quality and printing systems.

Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor

We compared observer performance of digital mammography among hard-copy readings and soft-copy readings using 3-megapixel (3M) and 5-megapixel (5M) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. Five experienced radiologists assessed 80 mammograms of 40 cancers and 40 benign lesions. There were no significant differences among the average A(z) of three modalities and among the κ values for intra- and interobserver agreement. The soft-copy reading using the 3M LCD monitor took a slightly longer time, although there were no significant differences.

A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom

PURPOSE

To provide a comparison between the image quality of electronically magnified (EM) and geometric, or true, magnification (TM) mammographic images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One Computed Radiography (CR), one Digital Radiography (DR) and two screen-film (S-F) imaging systems were investigated. A Contrast-Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom was used as a test object. Three contact images and three sets of TM images with a magnification factor of 1.8 were taken on all systems. Software was used to zoom the contact images by a factor of 1.8 to produce EM images. Two observers evaluated all of the images. An Image Quality Figure and contrast detail curve were used to analyze the observer data and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to determine the statistical significance of the results.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between soft copy and hard copy for any imaging modality. No significant difference in contrast detail detectability (CDD) was seen between EM images from the two digital systems and TM images on S-F systems. The results for the DR EM images and S-F TM images also showed no differences. The CDD of DR TM images was significantly better than both EM and S-F TM images.

CONCLUSION

Digitally zoomed images offer the same level of CDD as S-F TM images, and so may be viably used in their place. DR systems offer greater CDD than conventional S-F images, when comparing the TM images. This implies that doses can be greatly reduced for TM views using DR systems, while maintaining acceptable image quality.

Uso de software como ferramenta pedagógica no processo de ensino-aprendizagem da mamografia digital

OBJETIVO: Avaliar o impacto sobre o treinamento de residentes utilizando uma ferramenta computacional dedicada à avaliação do desempenho da leitura de imagens radiológicas convencionais e digitais. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: O treinamento foi realizado no Laboratório de Qualificação de Imagens Médicas (QualIM). Os residentes de radiologia efetuaram cerca de 1.000 leituras de um total de 60 imagens obtidas de um simulador estatístico (Alvim®) que apresenta fibras e microcalcificações de dimensões variadas. O desempenho dos residentes na detecção dessas estruturas foi avaliado por meio de parâmetros estatísticos. RESULTADOS: Os resultados da probabilidade de detectabilidade foram de 0,789 e 0,818 para os sistemas convencional e digital, respectivamente. As taxas de falso-positivos foram de 8% e 6% e os valores de verdadeiro-positivos, de 66% e 70%, respectivamente. O valor de kappa total foi 0,553 para as leituras em negatoscópio e 0,615 em monitor. A área sob a curva ROC foi de 0,716 para leitura em filme e 0,810 para monitor. CONCLUSÃO: O treinamento proposto mostrou ser efetivo e apresentou impacto positivo sobre o desempenho dos residentes, constituindo-se em interessante ferramenta pedagógica. Os resultados sugerem que o método de treinamento baseado na leitura de simuladores pode produzir um melhor desempenho dos profissionais na interpretação das imagens mamográficas.

Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor

The purpose was to compare observer performance in the detection of breast cancer using hard-copy film, and 3-megapixel (3-MP) and 5-megapixel (5-MP) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors in a simulated screening setting. We amassed 100 sample sets, including 32 patients with surgically proven breast cancer (masses present, N = 12; microcalcifications, N = 10; other types, N = 10) and 68 normal controls. All the mammograms were obtained using computed radiography (CR; sampling pitch of 50 mum). Twelve mammographers independently assessed CR mammograms presented in random order for hard-copy and soft-copy reading at minimal 4-week intervals. Observers rated the images on seven-point (1 to 7) and continuous (0 to 100) malignancy scales. Receiver-operating-characteristics analysis was performed, and the average area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each modality. The jackknife method with the Bonferroni correction was applied to multireader/multicase analysis. The average AUC values for the 3-MP LCD, 5-MP LCD, and hard-copy film were 0.954, 0.947, and 0.956 on the seven-point scale and 0.943, 0.923, and 0.944 on the continuous scale, respectively. There were no significant differences among the three modalities on either scale. Soft-copy reading using 3-MP and 5-MP LCDs is comparable to hard-copy reading for detecting breast cancer.

Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram: Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters

PURPOSE

To investigate optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading comparing the parameter recommended for hard-copy with other parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Digital mammograms using a Computed Radiography system were evaluated. The gradation processing parameter recommended by the manufacturer was GA (1.2). We prepared seven parameters that changed the degree of contrast: GA (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8). Images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom were displayed on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor using each parameter. Three readers independently assessed each image, and scored for the following items: intramammary contrast, extramammary contrast, sharpness, and graininess. Total score was calculated in each parameter. We also displayed normal mammograms of nine cases: three with a scattered fibroglandular density, three with a heterogeneously dense breast, and three with an extremely dense breast. These were displayed using GA (1.2) or using parameters with a higher total score than GA (1.2) in the phantom test. Three readers assessed each mammogram as in the phantom test.

RESULTS

In phantom test, GA (1.4), GA (1.6), and GA (1.8) obtained higher scores than GA (1.2). In normal cases tested using these parameters, GA (1.4) obtained the highest score. This was significantly higher than that of GA (1.2) (P=0.004). The score obtained for GA (1.4) was the highest in cases with extremely dense and heterogeneously dense breast tissue, though there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Soft-copy image quality was improved by gradient processing using higher contrast parameter than that routinely used in hard-copy, especially in dense breast cases.

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening.

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

The purpose of the study was to compare observer performance in the detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer among hard-copy reading and soft-copy readings using 3-megapixel (3M) and 5-megapixel (5M) liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. For the microcalcification detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 40 surgically verified cancer cases and 60 normal cases. For the mass detection test, we prepared 100 mammograms: 50 cancer cases and 50 normal cases. After six readers assessed both microcalcifications and masses set for each modality, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. The average A(z)s for mass detection using a hard copy and 3M and 5M LCD monitors were 0.923, 0.927 and 0.920, respectively; there were no significant differences. The average A(z) for microcalcification detection using hard copy, 3M and 5M LCD monitors was 0.977, 0.954 and 0.972, respectively. There were no significant differences, but the P-values between the hard copy and 3M LCD monitor and that between the 3M and 5M LCD monitor were 0.08 and 0.09, respectively. In conclusion, the observer performances for detecting masses of breast cancers were comparable among the hard copy and two LCD monitors; however, soft-copy reading with a 3M LCD monitor showed slightly lower observer performance for detecting microcalcifications of breast cancers than hard-copy or 5M LCD monitor reading.

Comparison of Calcification Specificity in Digital Mammography Using Soft-Copy Display Versus Screen-Film Mammography

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition.

RESULTS

Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems are currently being used to acquire mammograms in digital format, but digital displays are less than ideal compared to traditional film-screen display. Certain physical properties of softcopy displays [e.g., modulation transfer function (MTF)] are less than optimal compared to film. We developed methods to compensate for some of these softcopy display deficiencies, based on careful physical characterization of the displays and image-processing software. A series of 100 FFDM and 60 digitized images was shown to six observers-half experienced (mammographers) and half inexperienced (radiology residents). The observers had to decide if a mass or microcalcification cluster was present and classify it as benign or malignant. A window could be activated that brought the image detail within the window to full resolution and corrected for the nonisotropic MTF of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display. Experienced readers had better diagnostic performance and took less time to view the images. Experienced readers used window/level more than inexperienced readers, but inexperienced readers used magnification and the MTF compensation tool more often. Use of the magnification and the MTF tool increased reader decision confidence. Experienced and inexperienced readers use image-processing tools differently, with certain tools increasing reader confidence. Understanding how observers use image-processing tools may help in the development of better and more automated user interfaces.

Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

PURPOSE

To compare cancer detection rates of screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a screening program including the initial positive scores for interval cancers and cancers in the subsequent screening round, and to analyze the false-negative FFDM interpretations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using a paired study design, 3683 women underwent SFM and FFDM in a population-based screening program. Two standard views of each breast were acquired. The images were interpreted without previous films for comparison. Independent double reading using a 5-point rating scale for probability of cancer was used for each modality. An examination was defined as positive if at least one of the two independent readers scored 2 or higher on the 5-point rating scale. SFM-positive cases were discussed in a SFM consensus meeting and FFDM-positive cases in a separate FFDM consensus meeting before recall. The study population was followed for more than 2 years so that interval cancers and screen-detected cancers in the subsequent screening round could be included. Cancer detection rates were compared using the McNemar test for paired proportions. The kappa statistic and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs were used for comparing rating scores. The reading time was recorded for all FFDM interpretations.

RESULTS

A total of 31 cancers (detection rate 0.84%) were diagnosed initially, of which SFM detected 28 and FFDM 23 (McNemar test P=0.23, discordant pair 8 and 3). Two cancers with a positive score at initial SFM reading and three with a positive score at initial FFDM reading were dismissed at SFM and FFDM consensus meetings, respectively. The difference in cancer detection after recall (discordant pair 11 and 5) was not significant (McNemar test, P=0.21). Of the 10 interval cancers and 16 screen-detected cancers in the subsequent round, 3 had true-positive SFM scores while 4 had true-positive FFDM scores in the initial reading session. A total of 38 cancers therefore had a positive result at double reading at one or both modalities, 31 at SFM and 27 at FFDM (McNemar test, P=0.48). Comparison of SFM and FFDM interpretations using the mean score for each case revealed no statistically significant difference between the two modalities (Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs; P-value=0.228). Two initial round cancers (one tumor found incidentally at work-up for a mass proved to be a simple cyst with a positive score at FFDM but a negative score at SFM, and one tumor with positive score at SFM but negative score at FFDM due to positioning failure) were excluded from the further analysis. Excluding these two cancers from comparison, there were 31% (22 of 72) false-negative SFM and 47% (34 of 72) false-negative FFDM individual interpretations. The overall mean interpretation time for normal FFDM examinations was 45 s. For most false-negative FFDM results, the reading time was shorter or longer than for normal examinations. The recorded FFDM interpretation time was noticeably short for several overlooked cancers manifesting as microcalcifications (ductal carcinoma in situ).

CONCLUSION

There is no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between SFM and FFDM with soft-copy reading in a mammography screening program. Analysis of cancers missed at FFDM with soft-copy reading indicates that close attention has to be paid to systematic use of image display protocols.