Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T06:27:18.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Interpretation of digital screening mammography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

By
Tamara Miner Haygood  and
Basak E. Dogan
Edited by
Gary J. Whitman  and
Tamara Milner Haygood
Gary J. Whitman
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Tamara Milner Haygood
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Digital and film-screen screening mammography are fairly similar in their ability to detect cancer. Depending on which paper one is reading, this might be measured by sensitivity and specificity or by comparing other measures including cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value. Because it is not the mammogram itself that may exhibit a certain accuracy but rather the radiologist interpreting the mammogram, it follows that radiologists’ interpretation of digital screening mammograms is similar in accuracy to their interpretation of film-screen screening mammograms. There are, however, differences in the approach that may be taken. These are addressed here, and we will provide some suggestions.

Digital mammograms may be of two types, either computed radiography (CR) or digital radiography (DR). To make it more interesting, digital mammograms may be printed on film for interpretation or interpreted using soft copy on a computer monitor. Film-screen mammograms are normally interpreted on film, but they can be digitized and viewed on a computer screen, usually to serve as a comparison study to a mammogram that will be interpreted on the computer. The main focus of this chapter will be interpretation of DR-type digital mammograms on computer monitors.

Type
Chapter
Information
Digital Mammography
A Practical Approach
 , pp. 46 - 61
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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: 483–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranganathan, S, Faridah, Y, Ng, KH.Moving into the digital era: a novel experience with the first full-field digital mammography system in Malaysia. Singapore Med J 2007; 48: 804–7.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haygood, TM, Wang, J, Atkinson, EN, et al. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 216–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishiyama, M, Tsunoda-Shimizu, H, Kikuchi, M, Saida, Y, Hiramatsu, S.Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography. Breast Cancer 2009; 16: 58–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciatto, S, Brancato, B, Baglioni, R, Turci, M.A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57: 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haygood, TM, Whitman, GJ, Atkinson, EN, et al. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic aids. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: 585–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S, Merlin, T, Kreisz, F, Craft, P, Hiller, JE.Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2009; 33: 430–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Radiology. ACR-AAPM-SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography 2007. (accessed April 2012).
Haygood, TM, Arribas, E, Brennan, PC, et al. Conspicuity of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: 1509–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haygood, TM, Arribas, E, Liu, QMA, et al. Detection of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 761–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamitani, T, Yabuuchi, H, Soeda, H, et al. 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 2007; 17: 1365–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uematsu, T, Kasami, M.Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting. Acta Radiol 2008; 49: 623–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, T, Suzuki, A, Uchiyama, N, Ohuchi, N, Takahashi, S.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. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2363–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koontz, NA, Gunderman, RB.Gestalt theory: implications for radiology education. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1156–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kundel, HL, Nodine, CF, Conant, EF, Weinstein, SP.Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: gaze-tracking study. Radiology 2007; 242: 396–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 2010; 23: 170–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor-Phillips, S, Wallis, MG, Duncan, A, Gale, AG. The effect of digitising film prior mammograms on radiologists’ performance in breast screening: a JAFROC study. Proc SPIE 2009; 7263: 726311. DOI: 10.1117/12.810902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, AS, Rapelyea, JA, Rechtman, LR, et al. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 1436–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skaane, P, Diekmann, F, Balleyguier, C, et al. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1134–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 877–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, ED, Chandramouli, J, Hemminger, BM, et al. Does intensity windowing improve the detections of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?J Digital Imaging 1997; 10: 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisano, ED, Chandramouli, J, Hemminger, BM, et al. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. J Digital Imaging 1997; 10: 174–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupinski, EA, Roehrig, H, Dallas, W, Fan, J.Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18: 311–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network. National Horizon Scanning Report. Computer aided detection systems in mammography. Commonwealth of Australia, 2004. (accessed April 2012).
Hofvind, S, Geller, BM, Rosenberg, RD, Skaane, P.Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009; 253: 652–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, MJ, Whaley, DH, Brandt, KR, Amrami, KK.Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection – prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006; 239: 375–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onega, T, Aiello Bowles, EJ, Miglioretti, DL, et al. Radiologists’ perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 1217–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoo, LAL, Taylor, P, Given-Wilson, RM.Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 2005; 237: 444–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgian-Smith, D, Moore, RH, Halpern, E, et al. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1135–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freer, TW, Ulissey, MJ.Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220: 781–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, RJ, Ulissey, MJ, Wilt, RM.Computer aided detection as evidence in the courtroom: potential implications of an appellate court’s ruling. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 48–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beam, CA, Layde, PM, Sullivan, DC.Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, D, Sumkin, JH, Rockette, HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 185–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feig, SA, Sickles, EA, Evans, WP, Linver, MN.Re: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 1260–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, D, Stalder, JS, Hardesty, LA, et al. Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology 2004; 233: 418–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beam, CA, Sullivan, DC, Layde, PM.Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 891–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, N, Broeders, M, de Wolf, C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis 4th ed: summary document. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 614–22.
Tchou, PM, Haygood, TM, Atkinson, EN, et al. Interpretation time of computer-aided detection at screening mammography. Radiology 2010; 257: 40–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnside, ES, Park, JM, Fine, JP, Sisney, GA.The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 790–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, N, Broeders, M, de Wolf, C, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Brussels: European Communities, 2006. screening.iarc.fr/doc/ND7306954ENC_002.pdf (accessed April 2012).
Brennan, PC, McEntee, M, Evanoff, M, et al. Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: W177–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hambly, NM, McNicholas, MM, Phelan, N, et al. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1010–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karssemeijer, N, Bluekens, AM, Beijerinck, D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009; 253: 353–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 860–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sala, M, Salas, D, Belvis, F, et al. Reduction in false-positive results after introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. Radiology 2011; 258: 388–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heddson, B, Rönnow, K, Olsson, M, et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 419–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juel, IM, Skaane, P, Hoff, SR, et al. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: the Sogn and Fjordane study. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 962–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciatto, S, Rosselli Del Turco, M, Risso, G, et al. Comparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a national proficiency test of screening mammography. Eur J Radiol 2003; 45: 135–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciatto, S, Brancato, B, Rosselli Del Turco, M, et al. Comparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a proficiency test of screening mammography. Radiol Med 2003; 106: 59–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Helvie, MA, Hadjiiski, L, Makariou, E, et al. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. Radiology 2004; 231: 208–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birdwell, RL, Bandodkar, P, Ikeda, DM.Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005; 236: 451–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupples, TE, Cunningham, JE, Reynolds, JC.Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 944–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, JM, Nicholas, MJ, Mendel, JB, Slanetz, PJ.Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1483–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, JC, Ilvento, CC.Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 20–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×