Digital mammography systems allow manipulation of fine differences in image contrast by means of image processing algorithms. Different display algorithms have advantages and disadvantages for the specific tasks required in breast imaging-diagnosis and screening. Manual intensity windowing can produce digital mammograms very similar to standard screen-film mammograms but is limited by its operator dependence. Histogram-based intensity windowing improves the conspicuity of the lesion edge, but there is loss of detail outside the dense parts of the image. Mixture-model intensity windowing enhances the visibility of lesion borders against the fatty background, but the mixed parenchymal densities abutting the lesion may be lost. Contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization can also provide subtle edge information but might degrade performance in the screening setting by enhancing the visibility of nuisance information. Unsharp masking enhances the sharpness of the borders of mass lesions, but this algorithm may make even an indistinct mass appear more circumscribed. Peripheral equalization displays lesion details well and preserves the peripheral information in the surrounding breast, but there may be flattening of image contrast in the nonperipheral portions of the image. Trex processing allows visualization of both lesion detail and breast edge information but reduces image contrast.

We found the one-year change in mammographic density after estrogen plus progestin initiation predicted subsequent increase in breast cancer risk. All of the increased risk from estrogen plus progestin use was mediated through mammographic density change. Doctors should evaluate changes in mammographic density with women who initiate estrogen plus progestin therapy and discuss the breast cancer risk implications.

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

No abstract

Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the performance of radiologists with digital mammograms acquired during the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS Only those DMIST cases with proven cancer status by biopsy or 1-year follow-up that had available digital images were included in this multireader, multicase ROC study. Two commercially available CAD systems for digital mammography were used: iCAD SecondLook, version 1.4; and R2 ImageChecker Cenova, version 1.0. Fourteen radiologists interpreted, without and with CAD, a set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the iCAD SecondLook system, and 15 radiologists interpreted a different set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the R2 ImageChecker Cenova system. RESULTS The average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66–0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67–0.77) with the iCAD system (p = 0.07). Similarly, the average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66–0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67–0.77) with the R2 system (p = 0.08). Sensitivity and specificity differences without and with CAD for both systems also were not significant. CONCLUSION Radiologists in our studies rarely changed their diagnostic decisions after the addition of CAD. The application of CAD had no statistically significant effect on radiologist AUC, sensitivity, or specificity performance with digital mammograms from DMIST.

When digital mammograms were preferred to screen-film mammograms, radiologists selected different digital processing algorithms for each of three mammographic reading tasks and for different lesion types. Soft-copy display will eventually allow radiologists to select among these options more easily.

No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment.