Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2008-06-01 Epub Date: 2008-02-27 DOI:10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0
Per Skaane, Felix Diekmann, Corinne Balleyguier, Susanne Diekmann, Jean-Charles Piguet, Kari Young, Michael Abdelnoor, Loren Niklason
{"title":"Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.","authors":"Per Skaane,&nbsp;Felix Diekmann,&nbsp;Corinne Balleyguier,&nbsp;Susanne Diekmann,&nbsp;Jean-Charles Piguet,&nbsp;Kari Young,&nbsp;Michael Abdelnoor,&nbsp;Loren Niklason","doi":"10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":"18 6","pages":"1134-43"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2008/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胶片乳房x线照相术与全视场数字乳房x线照相术的观察者可变性。
带有软拷贝读数的全视场数字乳房x线摄影(FFDM)比带有硬拷贝读数的屏幕胶片乳房x线摄影(SFM)更复杂。本研究的目的是比较来自乳腺癌筛查项目的配对乳房x线照片中SFM与FFDM的观察者间和观察者内变异性。6名放射科医生解释了232例采用两种技术获得的乳房x线照片,包括46例癌症,88例良性病变和98例正常。图像判读包括BI-RADS分类。一个病例包括一个乳房的标准双视图乳房x光检查。图像评分分为两组,间隔5周。对于SFM和FFDM,观察者的可变性都是实质性的,但总体而言,SFM和FFDM的观察者可变性之间没有显著差异。与肿块相比,微钙化的平均kappa值较低,表明一致性较差。观察者对微钙化的一致性较低,尤其是三种阅读器的两种成像技术之间的观察者一致性较低,是值得注意的。观察者一致的水平可能是放射科医生表现的一个指标,并可能混淆旨在区分两种成像技术之间诊断差异的研究。我们的研究结果证实了在乳腺癌筛查中对放射科医生进行FFDM软拷贝阅读的适当培训的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence for the detection of airway nodules in chest CT scans. Challenges and variability in breast cancer screening: diagnostic work-up and strategies for standardization across Europe. Evaluating fusion models for predicting occult lymph node metastasis in tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Preliminary reports of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: a nationwide performance on the Korean population in 2019-2020. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for peroneal tendon tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1