Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

M. J. Kim, J. H. Youk, D. R. Kang, S. H. Choi, J. Y. Kwak, E. J. Son, Eun Kyung Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (x 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (x 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (Az=0.8680 for ZOOM; Az=0.8682 for MAG; p=0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p<0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p<0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)486-492
Number of pages7
JournalBritish Journal of Radiology
Volume83
Issue number990
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010 Jun 1

Fingerprint

Calcinosis
Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
ROC Curve
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{a21fae569ead492590b6e8285adff54d,
title = "Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (x 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (x 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (Az=0.8680 for ZOOM; Az=0.8682 for MAG; p=0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p<0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p<0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.",
author = "Kim, {M. J.} and Youk, {J. H.} and Kang, {D. R.} and Choi, {S. H.} and Kwak, {J. Y.} and Son, {E. J.} and Kim, {Eun Kyung}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1259/bjr/16967819",
language = "English",
volume = "83",
pages = "486--492",
journal = "British Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0007-1285",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "990",

}

Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. / Kim, M. J.; Youk, J. H.; Kang, D. R.; Choi, S. H.; Kwak, J. Y.; Son, E. J.; Kim, Eun Kyung.

In: British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 83, No. 990, 01.06.2010, p. 486-492.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

AU - Kim, M. J.

AU - Youk, J. H.

AU - Kang, D. R.

AU - Choi, S. H.

AU - Kwak, J. Y.

AU - Son, E. J.

AU - Kim, Eun Kyung

PY - 2010/6/1

Y1 - 2010/6/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (x 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (x 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (Az=0.8680 for ZOOM; Az=0.8682 for MAG; p=0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p<0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p<0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.

AB - The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interpretation of microcalcifications assessed on images zoomed (x 2.0) from digital mammograms is at least equivalent to that from digital magnification mammography (x 1.8) with respect to diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Three radiologists with different levels of experience in mammography reviewed each full-field digital mammography reader set for 185 patients with pathologically proven microcalcification clusters, which consisted of digital magnification mammograms (MAGs) with a magnification factor of 1.8 and images zoomed from mammograms (ZOOM) with a zoom factor of 2.0. Each radiologist rated their suspicion of breast cancer in microcalcific lesions using a six-point scale and the image quality and their confidence in the decisions using a five-point scale. Results were analysed according to display methods using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az value) for ZOOM and MAGs to interpret microcalcifications, and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for image quality and confidence levels. There was no statistically significant difference in the level of suspicion of breast cancer between the ZOOM and MAG groups (Az=0.8680 for ZOOM; Az=0.8682 for MAG; p=0.9897). However, MAG images were significantly better than ZOOM images in terms of visual imaging quality (p<0.001), and the confidence level with MAG was better than with ZOOM (p<0.001). In conclusion, the performance of radiologists in the diagnosis of microcalcifications using ZOOM was similar to that using MAGs, although image quality and confidence levels were better using MAGs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952942146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952942146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/bjr/16967819

DO - 10.1259/bjr/16967819

M3 - Article

C2 - 19752171

AN - SCOPUS:77952942146

VL - 83

SP - 486

EP - 492

JO - British Journal of Radiology

JF - British Journal of Radiology

SN - 0007-1285

IS - 990

ER -