首页> 外文期刊>Radiology >Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
【24h】

Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

机译:比较全场乳房X线摄影的软拷贝和硬拷贝读数。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' performance in detecting breast cancer when reading full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images either displayed on monitors or printed on film. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received investigational review board approval and was HIPAA compliant, with waiver of informed consent. A reader study was conducted in which 26 radiologists read screening FFDM images displayed on high-resolution monitors (soft-copy digital) and printed on film (hard-copy digital). Three hundred thirty-three cases were selected from the Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial screening study (n = 49,528). Of these, 117 were from patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 15 months of undergoing screening mammography. The digital mammograms were displayed on mammographic workstations and printed on film according to the manufacturer's specifications. Readers read both hard-copy and soft-copy images 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist read a subset of the total images. Twenty-two readers were assigned to evaluate images from one of three FFDM systems, and four readers were assigned to evaluate images from two mammographic systems. Each radiologist assigned a malignancy score on the basis of overall impression by using a seven-point scale, where 1 = definitely not malignant and 7 = definitely malignant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for the primary comparison. The AUCs for soft-copy and hard-copy were 0.75 and 0.76, respectively (95% confidence interval: -0.04, 0.01; P = .36). Secondary analyses showed no significant differences in AUCs on the basis of manufacturer type, lesion type, or breast density. CONCLUSION: Soft-copy reading does not provide an advantage in the interpretation of digital mammograms. However, the display formats were not optimized and display software remains an evolving process, particularly for soft-copy reading.
机译:目的:比较放射科医生在读取监视器上显示或胶片上显示的全场数字乳房X线照片(FFDM)图像时检测乳腺癌的性能。材料与方法:这项研究获得了研究审查委员会的批准,并且符合HIPAA标准,并放弃了知情同意。进行了一项读者研究,其中26名放射科医生阅读了在高分辨率监视器(软拷贝数字)上显示和印刷在胶片(硬拷贝数字)上的FFDM筛查图像。从数字化乳腺X线图像筛查试验筛查研究中选择了333例(n = 49,528)。其中有117例来自于在进行乳房X线筛查的15个月内被诊断出患有乳腺癌的患者。数字化乳腺X光照片显示在乳腺X射线摄影工作站上,并根据制造商的规定印在胶片上。读者间隔6周阅读硬拷贝和软拷贝图像。每位放射科医生都会读取全部图像的子集。分配了22个阅读器来评估来自三个FFDM系统之一的图像,并且分配了四个阅读器来评估来自两个乳房X线照相系统的图像。每位放射科医生根据总体印象,使用七点量表来分配恶性评分,其中1 =肯定不是恶性的,而7 =肯定是恶性的。结果:对于主要比较,接收器工作特性曲线(AUC)下的面积没有显着差异。软拷贝和硬拷贝的AUC分别为0.75和0.76(95%置信区间:-0.04、0.01; P = 0.36)。二级分析显示,基于制造商类型,病变类型或乳房密度,AUC没有显着差异。结论:软拷贝阅读在数字乳腺X线照片的解释上没有优势。但是,显示格式并未得到优化,显示软件仍在不断发展,特别是对于软拷贝读取而言。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号