Advertisement

Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance

Published:November 15, 2010DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.10.005

      Abstract

      The object of this study was to compare of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) in image quality and diagnostic performance. We assembled 80 masses and 80 microcalcifications. Images were displayed on workstation, 5M, and 3M PACS monitors. The image quality for mammograms on workstation was significantly better than that for mammograms on PACS monitors. The sensitivity and NPV for microcalcifications on workstation were higher than those on PACS monitors. The conventional PACS cannot substitute for a FFDM workstation for mammographic evaluation.

      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 access
      One-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 Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sickles EA
        Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986; 146: 661-663
        • Skaane P
        • Balleyguier C
        • Diekmann F
        • Diekmann S
        • Piguet JC
        • Young K
        • Niklason LT
        Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study.
        Radiology. 2005; 237: 37-44
        • 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
      1. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/mammographyqualitystandardsactandprogram. Published January 16, 2009. Updated September 1, 2009. Accessed September 14, 2009.

        • Uematsu T
        • Kasami M
        • Uchida Y
        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
        • Nishikawa RM
        • Acharyya S
        • Gatsonis C
        • Pisano ED
        • Cole EB
        • Marques HS
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Farria DM
        • Kanal KM
        • Mahoney MC
        • Rebne M
        • Staiger MJ
        Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
        Radiology. 2009; 251: 41-49
        • 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: 2363-2369
        • Kamitani T
        • Yabuuchi H
        • Soeda H
        • Matsuo Y
        • Okafuj T
        • Sakai S
        • Furuya A
        • Hatakenaka M
        • Ishii N
        • Honda H
        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: 1365-1371
        • Grabbe EH
        • Funke M
        • Obenauer S
        • Hermann KP
        Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
        Eur Radiol. 2002; 12: 2188-2191
        • Niklason LT
        • Young K
        • Piguet J
        • Diekmann S
        • Diekmann F
        • Balleyguier C
        • Skaane P
        Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study.
        Radiology. 2005; 237: 37-44
        • Pisano ED
        • Hendrick RE
        • Yaffe MJ
        • Baum JK
        • Acharyya S
        • Cormack JB
        • Hanna LA
        • Conant EF
        • Fajardo LL
        • Bassett LW
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Jong RA
        • Rebner M
        • Tosteson AN
        • Gatsonis CA
        Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
        Radiology. 2008; 246: 376-383
        • Pisano ED
        • Cole EB
        • Kistner EO
        • Muller KE
        • Hemminger BM
        • Brown ML
        • Johnston RE
        • Kuzmiak CM
        • Braeuning MP
        • Freimanis RI
        • Soo MS
        • Baker JA
        • Walsh R
        Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.
        Radiology. 2002; 223: 483-488
        • Lewin JM
        • Hendrick RE
        • D'Orsi CJ
        • Isaacs PK
        • Moss LJ
        • Karellas A
        • Sisney GA
        • Kuni CC
        • Cutter GR
        Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.
        Radiology. 2001; 218: 873-880