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
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
复制标题
数字乳腺 X 线摄影中微钙化的软拷贝读取：临床环境中 5 兆像素阴极射线管显示器与 3 兆像素液晶显示器的诊断性能
DOI：
10.1080/02841850701370691
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Y. Uchida
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Uematsu;M. Kasami;Y. Uchida
背景：最近一项使用专用对比度细节模体的研究表明，300万像素(M)监视器的图像质量可以接近数字乳房X光检查中的5M监视器。目的：比较5M阴极射线管(CRT)显示器和3M液晶显示器(LCD)在临床环境下对微钙化数字乳腺摄影的软拷贝读数。材料和方法：100例筛查发现的无肿块的微钙化病变(恶性34例，良性66例)，均经11G立体定向真空辅助乳腺活检术或确定性手术证实。一位放射科医生在一台5M的CRT显示器和一台3M的LCD显示器上分析了5个月的软拷贝乳房X光照片，并在5分制上对恶性肿瘤和钙化分布的可能性进行了评分。钙化形态和乳房密度按四分制进行评分。根据乳腺影像报告和数据系统计算阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。同时还测量了口译时间。结果：两组在恶性可能性(P=0.655)、钙化形态(P=0.168)、钙化分布(P=0.11)、乳腺密度(P=0.0608)等方面差异无统计学意义。5M CRT显示器软拷贝读数的PPV和NPV分别为57%(30/53)和91%(43/47)，与3M LCD显示器的结果一致。5M显示器的总口译时间平均为88 S，3M液晶显示器的平均口译时间为67 S(P<；0.0001)。结论：在本研究中，使用3M LCD监视器对微钙化的数字乳房X光摄影进行软拷贝读取在诊断性能上与5M CRT监视器相似。
Background: A recent study using dedicated contrast-detail phantoms showed that the image quality of a 3-megapixel (M) monitor can approach that of a 5M monitor in digital mammography. Purpose: To compare a 5M cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor with a 3M liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor for soft-copy reading of digital mammography of microcalcifications in a clinical setting. Material and Methods: 100 screen-detected microcalcification lesions (34 malignant and 66 benign) without mass that had been evaluated with 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy or definitive surgery were recruited into the study. One radiologist analyzed the soft-copy mammograms on a 5M CRT monitor and a 3M LCD monitor with 5 months between interpretations and scored the likelihood of malignancy and calcification distribution on a five-point scale. Calcification morphology and breast density were scored on a four-point scale. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated on the basis of a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. The interpretation time was also measured. Results: There was no significant difference in the likelihood of malignancy (P = 0.655), calcification morphology (P = 0.168), calcification distribution (P = 0.11), and breast density (P = 0.0608). The PPV and NPV of soft-copy reading on the 5M CRT monitor was 57% (30/53) and 91% (43/47), respectively, identical to the results using the 3M LCD monitor. The total interpretation time averaged 88 s for the 5M CRT monitor and 67 s for the 3M LCD monitor (P<0.0001). Conclusion: Soft-copy reading of a digital mammography of microcalcifications with a 3M LCD monitor was similar in diagnostic performance to a 5M CRT monitor in this study.