Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Medical Imaging—Original Article

Evaluation of the effect of zoom function on lesion detection by soft-copy reading of screening mammograms

Corresponding Author

Phuong Dung Trieu

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence

Ms Phuong Dung Trieu, Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Level 5, M building, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Patrick Brennan,

Patrick Brennan

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Bruno Giuffre,

Bruno Giuffre

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Claudia Mello-Thoms,

Claudia Mello-Thoms

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Kriscia Tapia,

Kriscia Tapia

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Nicole Santangelo,

Nicole Santangelo

BreastScreen NSW, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Radiology Department, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Haewon Kim,

Haewon Kim

BreastScreen NSW, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Katherine Cameron,

Katherine Cameron

Imaging Partners Online, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Catherine Hayter,

Catherine Hayter

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Glenys Da Costa,

Glenys Da Costa

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Jarmila Sterba,

Jarmila Sterba

South Eastern Sydney Illawarra BreastScreen Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

BreastScreen NSW, Northern Sydney and Central Coast Local, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Warwick Lee,

Warwick Lee

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

BreastScreen NSW, Cancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Phuong Dung Trieu,

Corresponding Author

Phuong Dung Trieu

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Correspondence

Ms Phuong Dung Trieu, Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Level 5, M building, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Patrick Brennan,

Patrick Brennan

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Bruno Giuffre,

Bruno Giuffre

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Claudia Mello-Thoms,

Claudia Mello-Thoms

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Kriscia Tapia,

Kriscia Tapia

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Nicole Santangelo,

Nicole Santangelo

BreastScreen NSW, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Radiology Department, Concord Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Haewon Kim,

Haewon Kim

BreastScreen NSW, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Katherine Cameron,

Katherine Cameron

Imaging Partners Online, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Catherine Hayter,

Catherine Hayter

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Glenys Da Costa,

Glenys Da Costa

Radiology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Jarmila Sterba,

Jarmila Sterba

South Eastern Sydney Illawarra BreastScreen Service, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

BreastScreen NSW, Northern Sydney and Central Coast Local, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

Warwick Lee,

Warwick Lee

Medical Image Optimization and Perception (MIOPeG), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

BreastScreen NSW, Cancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 01 April 2015

https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12298

Citations: 2

PD Trieu MDR; P Brennan PhD; B Giuffre MBBS, FRANZCR; C Mello-Thoms PhD; K Tapia BA (Eng); N Santangelo BSc (Med), MBBS, FRANZCR; H Kim MBChB; K Cameron BMed (Hons) FRANZCR; C Hayter BSc (Med), MBBS; G Da Costa BSc (Med), MBBS; J Sterba MD, FRANZCR; W Lee MBBS (Hons), BSc (Med), FRANZCR.

Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of zooming in improving screen-reader performance in reporting digital mammograms.

Method

Two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, 5 readers were asked to report 59 two-view bilateral mammograms retrospectively with zooming function turned off. The second session was similar to the first one except that zooming was enabled. The task of readers was to assess if the mammograms were normal or abnormal and rate the confidence levels for each of the lesion they detected. The reader performances were evaluated via case sensitivity, lesion sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) and jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) figure of merit (FOM).

Results

There was no significant improvement in overall reader performance in detecting abnormalities in zooming condition compared with no zooming in terms of case sensitivity (96% and 87%, P = 0.285) or lesion sensitivity (88% and 81%, P = 0.224). However, differences in ROC AUC and JAFROC FOM (P ≤ 0.05) were found in two readers when they performed the test set with zooming function.

Conclusion

The results suggested that the use of the zooming function did improve the performance of some readers in detecting abnormal cases.

References

1Pun E, Lau WF, Cassumbhoy R, Taranto AJ, Pitman AG. Clinical experience of the first digital mammographic unit in Australia in its first year use. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 576–579.
10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01420.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. Resolution 39. [Cited Oct 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.acr.org/~/media/3484ca30845348359bad4684779d492d.pdf. Practice Guidelines & Technical Standards. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, 2014; 7–8.
Google Scholar
3Haygood TM, Arribas E, Brennan PC et al. Conspicuity of microcalcifications on digital screening mammograms using varying degrees of monitor zooming. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: 1509–1517.
10.1016/j.acra.2009.07.010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming. Radiologe 2002; 42: 261–264.
10.1007/s00117-002-0733-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY et al. Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography? Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 310–317.
10.1007/s00330-008-1135-2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Haygood TM, Wang J, Lane D et al. Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms. A partial explanation. J Digit Imaging 2010; 23: 170–180.
10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 38–41.
10.2214/AJR.05.1397
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Jackknife free-response ROC methodology. In: DP Chakraborty, MP Eckstein (eds). Proceedings of the SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment, Vol. 5372. Springer, Bellingham, 2004; 144–153.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging system. Am J Radiol 2006; 3: 413–422.
10.1016/j.jacr.2006.02.021
PubMed Google Scholar
10De Maeseneer M, Beeckman P, Osteaux M et al. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms. J Belge Radiol 1992; 75: 173–178.
PubMed Google Scholar
11Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population based mammography screening: comparison of screen film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229: 877–884.
10.1148/radiol.2293021171
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, Fan J. Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18: 311–315.
10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume59, Issue3

June 2015

Pages 292-299

Evaluation of the effect of zoom function on lesion detection by soft-copy reading of screening mammograms

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Evaluation of the effect of zoom function on lesion detection by soft-copy reading of screening mammograms

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information