Abstract
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 Az 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.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.J Digit Imaging. 2003; 16: 341-344
- Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.Radiology. 2002; 223: 483-488
- Practice for determinants of image quality in digital mammography.in: ACR practice guideline. American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)2007: 493-516
- Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor: an observer performance study.Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1365-1371
- 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: 2363-2369
- Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas.4th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)2003
- The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
- Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.Eur J Radiol. 2006; 58: 471-479
- Impact of ambient light and window setting on the detectability of catheters on soft-copy display of chest radiographs at bedside.AJR Am J Roentogenol. 2003; 181: 1415-1421
- Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram: comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters.Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66: 309-312
- Current status of various monitors. Assortment, performance, and display of mammography.Eizoujouhou Medical. 2005; 37 (in Japanese): 1206-1211
- Understanding of digital mammography. Current status, future, and problems of soft-copy diagnosis.Rad Fan. 2005; 3 (in Japanese): 56-59
- 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: 623-629
- Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.Acta Radiol. 2007; 48: 714-720
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 30, 2010
Accepted:
August 1,
2010
Received:
July 15,
2010
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
