Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study
Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.2471070418
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Gatsonis, Constantine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hendrick, R. Edward;Cole, Elodia B.;Gatsonis, Constantine
目的：回顾性比较乳腺癌诊断的数字化乳腺X线摄影与软拷贝解释的准确性与屏幕电影乳腺X线摄影的每个数字化设备制造商，通过使用活检和随访的结果作为参考standard.Materials和方法：主要的HIPAA-compliant数字乳腺X线摄影成像筛查试验（DMIST）的机构审查委员会批准的每个研究站点，并获得知情同意。这些批准和同意包括将数据用于未来符合HIPAA的回顾性研究。美国放射学会成像网络DMIST收集了49528名女性（平均年龄54.6岁;范围19-92岁）使用数字和屏幕胶片乳房X光检查进行的筛查乳房X光检查研究。使用了来自四家制造商（Fischer、Fuji、GE和Hologic）的数字乳腺X射线摄影系统。对于每个数字制造商，构建了一组在DMIST中使用数字和屏幕-胶片乳腺X射线摄影进行筛查的女性癌症富集读数器。每个阅片人集包含在选择阅片人集时每个数字制造商已知的所有含癌症研究，以及阴性和良性研究的子集。对于每个阅片人组，6或12名经验丰富的放射科医生参加了两次随机排序的阅读会议，间隔6周。每位放射科医生确定可疑的发现，并通过使用七分制量表对确定的病变中的乳腺癌疑似进行评分。根据数字制造商的要求，使用软拷贝数字和屏片乳腺X线摄影的受试者工作特征曲线（AUC）下的面积、灵敏度和特异性对结果进行分析。由于可获得的癌症病例很少，因此未提供Hologic数字的结果。实施的设计提供了80%的把握度，以检测Fischer、Fuji和GE的平均AUC差异分别为0.09、0.08和0.06。结果如下：Fischer、Fuji和GE软拷贝数字和屏片乳腺X射线摄影在AUC、灵敏度或特异性方面无显著差异。每个models.Conclusion：软拷贝数字和屏幕胶片乳腺X射线摄影Fischer，富士和GE数字乳腺X射线摄影设备之间没有统计学显著差异。(c)RSNA，2008年。
Purpose: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference standard.Materials and Methods: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19-92 years). Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography.Results for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided 80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively. Results: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality.Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment. (c) RSNA, 2008.