Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading—Observer Performance Study

Skaane, Per; Balleyguier, Corinne; Diekmann, Felix; Diekmann, Susanne; Piguet, Jean-Charles; Young, K. C.; Niklason, Loren T.

doi:10.1148/radiol.2371041605

Cited by 60 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even with the progresses in medical imaging, like the recent screen film to digital transition that has been reported to improve diagnostic performance [Pisano, 2005;Skaane, 2005], mammography still suffers from diagnosis errors. Most of them come from the fact that the lesions of interest to be detected on mammograms are very low contrasted signals, which visibility can be reduced by the inherent nature of x ray projection imaging.…”

Section: Breast Cancer: a Challenge In Diagnostic Radiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass detection in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a model observer study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Breast Cancer: a Challenge In Diagnostic Radiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mass detection in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a model observer study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other studies in this area have been reported in recent years [18][19][20][21][22][23] and, despite the fact that their conclusions vary, most exhibit a common characteristic: they are based on subjective human perception and decision criteria, known to vary significantly, rather than on objective metrics of image quality such as CNR and spatial resolution. Moreover, to our knowledge, to date no studies have been published comparing the primary image for both techniques without the application of additional postprocessing methods (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study

Koutalonis¹,

Delis²,

Pascoal³

et al. 2010

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Magnification, which is considered to be a relatively high "dose cost" mammographic technique, is a complementary examination performed on women exhibiting breast complaints or abnormalities. Particular attention is given to the imaging procedure as the primary aim is to confirm the existence of suspected abnormalities, despite the additional dose. The introduction of post-processing capabilities and the widespread use of digital mammography promoted some controversy in the last decades on whether electronic zoom performed on the derived initial screening mammogram can effectively replace this technique. This study used Monte Carlo simulation methods to derive simulated screening mammograms produced under several exposure conditions, aiming to electronically magnify and compare them to the corresponding magnification mammograms. Comparison was based on quantitative measurements of image quality, namely contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and spatial resolution. Results demonstrated that CNR was higher for geometric magnification compared to the case of electronic zooming. The percentage difference was higher for lesions of smaller radius and achieved 29% for 0.10 mm details. Although spatial resolution is maintained high in the zoomed images, when investigating microcalcifications of 0.05 mm radius or less, only with geometric magnification can they be visualised.

show abstract

“…Currently, observer performance studies are routinely performed for the assessment and comparison of technologies and practices and the area (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is the most frequently used summary index when comparing different modalities (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). In the medical imaging field conclusions resulting from important pivotal studies are often made based on the assessment of differences between areas under estimated ROC curves that include substantial portions near which no experimental data lie.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: Potential Impact of the “Last” Experimentally Measured Operating Point

Gur

Bandos²,

Rockette³

2008

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary reviews a specific issue related to the selection of the analytical tool used when comparing the estimated performance of systems under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) paradigm. This issue is related to the possible impact of the last experimentally ascertained ROC data point in terms of highest true positive and false positive fractions. An example of a case where the selection of a specific analysis approach could affect the study conclusion from being nonsignificant (p=0.75) for parametric analysis and significant (p=0.003) for the non-parametric analysis is presented, followed by recommendations that should help avoid misinterpretation of the results. KeywordsTechnology Assessment; Performance; ROC; Parametric Analysis; Non-Parametric Analysis Currently, observer performance studies are routinely performed for the assessment and comparison of technologies and practices and the area (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is the most frequently used summary index when comparing different modalities (1-5). In the medical imaging field conclusions resulting from important pivotal studies are often made based on the assessment of differences between areas under estimated ROC curves that include substantial portions near which no experimental data lie. Hence, in most instances, it would be preferable to assess differences between partial AUCs (6,7). Unfortunately, the large variability frequently associated with these studies would necessitate extremely large sample sizes to enable demonstration of significant differences between partial AUCs, making this approach impractical in many situations. As a result, we continue to do the best we can under the circumstances, namely estimate the differences between the AUCs and assess the significance level of these differences, if any.A variety of parametric and non-parametric approaches have been developed to make statistical inferences based on AUC in experiments that are performed under the ROC paradigm (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)). An implicit assumption in all of these approaches is that even if the estimated AUCs are not precise in absolute terms, the comparison of two or more AUCs on a relative scale is frequently valid regardless of the analytical approach taken to estimate the individual ROC curves being compared. All of the methods employed to date extrapolate (or more precisely

show abstract

Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading—Observer Performance Study

Abstract: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.

Cited by 60 publications

References 17 publications

Mass detection in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a model observer study

Mass detection in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a model observer study

Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study

Comparing Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: Potential Impact of the “Last” Experimentally Measured Operating Point

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About