Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography?
Saved in:
| Title: | Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kim MJ (AUTHOR), Kim EK (AUTHOR), Kwak JY (AUTHOR), Son EJ (AUTHOR), Youk JH (AUTHOR), Choi SH (AUTHOR), Han M (AUTHOR), Oh KK (AUTHOR), Kim, Min Jung1 (AUTHOR), Kim, Eun-Kyung (AUTHOR), Kwak, Jin Young (AUTHOR), Son, Eun Ju (AUTHOR), Youk, Ji Hyun (AUTHOR), Choi, Seon Hyeong (AUTHOR), Han, Mooyoung (AUTHOR), Oh, Ki Keun (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Radiology. Feb2009, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p310-317. 8p. |
| Abstract: | The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of microcalcifications in zoomed digital contact mammography with digital magnification mammography. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed 120 microcalcification clusters in 111 patients with a full-field digital mammography system relying on digital magnification mammogram (MAG) images and zoomed images from contact mammography (ZOOM) using commercially available zooming systems on monitors. Each radiologist estimated the probability of malignancy and rated the image quality and confidence rate. Performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. All three radiologists rated MAG images higher than ZOOM images for sensitivity with statistical significance (average value, 92% vs. 87%, P<0.05) and performance by ROC analysis improved with MAG imaging. The confidence rate for diagnosis decision and the assessment of lesion characteristics were also better in MAG images than in ZOOM images with statistical significance (P<0.0001). Digital magnification mammography can enhance diagnostic performance when characterizing microcalcifications. Images zoomed from digital contact mammography cannot serve as an alternative to direct magnification digital mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and image quality of microcalcifications in zoomed digital contact mammography with digital magnification mammography. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed 120 microcalcification clusters in 111 patients with a full-field digital mammography system relying on digital magnification mammogram (MAG) images and zoomed images from contact mammography (ZOOM) using commercially available zooming systems on monitors. Each radiologist estimated the probability of malignancy and rated the image quality and confidence rate. Performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. All three radiologists rated MAG images higher than ZOOM images for sensitivity with statistical significance (average value, 92% vs. 87%, P<0.05) and performance by ROC analysis improved with MAG imaging. The confidence rate for diagnosis decision and the assessment of lesion characteristics were also better in MAG images than in ZOOM images with statistical significance (P<0.0001). Digital magnification mammography can enhance diagnostic performance when characterizing microcalcifications. Images zoomed from digital contact mammography cannot serve as an alternative to direct magnification digital mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09387994 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-008-1135-2 |
