SCREEN-TRIAL: Softcopy Reading in European Screening Mammography

Evertsz, Carl J. G.; Karssemeijer, Nico; Bödicker, Anke; Roelofs, Ton; Beck, Christian; Woudenberg, Sander van; Hendriks, Jan H. C. L.; Prause, Guido P. M.; Bohnenkamp, Sascha; Dechow, Dietmar; Böhm, Dominik; Wedekind, Nora; Lazzari, Barbara; Heid, Patrice; Bjurstam, Nils; Beijerinck, David; Junkermann, H.; Turco, Marco Rosselli Del; Séradour, B.; Kokk, Magnus; Marshall, Julian; Peitgen, Heinz‐Otto

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-59327-7_100

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, there is experimental evidence that alternating the current and prior mammograms on the same display allows better evaluation of temporal changes than conventional display of images next to each other [3], in particular if images are properly registered in the spatial [4] and gray-scale domains [5]. Also, new technologies for improved interpretation of mammograms such as computer-aided detection (CAD), computer-assisted training and reader in-service monitoring [6], can be introduced more easily in a digital environment [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic performance and reading speed for conventional mammography film reading is compared to reading digitized mammograms on a dedicated workstation. A series of mammograms judged negative at screening and corresponding priors were collected. Half were diagnosed as cancer at the next screening, or earlier for interval cancers. The others were normal. Original films were read by fifteen experienced screening radiologists. The readers annotated potential abnormalities and estimated their likelihood of malignancy. More than 1 year later, five radiologists reread a subset of 271 cases (88 cancer cases having visible signs in retrospect and 183 normals) on a mammography workstation after film digitization. Markers from a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for microcalcifications were available to the readers. Performance was evaluated by comparison of A(z)-scores based on ROC and multiple-Reader multiple-case (MRMC) analysis, and localized receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis for the 271 cases. Reading speed was also determined. No significant difference in diagnostic performance was observed between conventional and soft-copy reading. Average A(z)-scores were 0.83 and 0.84 respectively. Soft-copy reading was only slightly slower than conventional reading. Using a mammography workstation including CAD for detection of microcalcifications, soft-copy reading is possible without loss of quality or efficiency.

show abstract