SpringerLink
Log in

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Brazil)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F (2003) Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography (in German). Rofo 175:775–779

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Skaane P, Grabbe E (2003) Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 16:341–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Jiroutek MR, Muller KE, Zheng Y, Kuzmiak CM, Koomen MA (2006) Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF (2003) International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1384–1393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A (1997) Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging. Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 38:497–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, Niklason LT (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study. Radiology 237:37–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pedersen K, Nordanger J (2002) Quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography in the Norwegian breast-screening programme. Eur Radiol 12:463–470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa. Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Donner A, Eliasziw M (1992) A goodness-of-fit approach to inference procedures for the kappa statistic: confidence interval construction, significance-testing and sample size estimation. Stat Med 11:1511–1519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cicchetti DV (1976) Assessing inter-rater reliability for rating scales: resolving some basic issues. Br J Psychiatr 129:452–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A, Cutter G (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Glueck DH, Lamb MM, Lewin JM, Pisano ED (2007) Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. Acad Radiol 14:670–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography with flat-panel selenium detectors in a population-based screening programme: The Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183-191

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, Furuya A, Hatakenaka M, Ishii N, Hona H (2007) Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2002) Full-field digital mammography (FFDM): intraindividual comparison of direct magnification versus monitor zooming in patients with microcalcifications (in German). Radiologe 42:261–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS (2006) BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Berg WA, D’Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS, Crewson PE (2002) Does training in the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 224:871–880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, Scheel B, Søvik E, Ertzaas AK, Hofvind S, Abdelnoor M (2005) Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol 46:679–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Center, Ullevaal University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0407, Oslo, Norway

    Per Skaane & Kari Young

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Charite, Berlin, Germany

    Felix Diekmann & Susanne Diekmann

  3. Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France

    Corinne Balleyguier

  4. Institut Imagerive, Geneva, Switzerland

    Jean-Charles Piguet

  5. Center for Clinical Research, Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Michael Abdelnoor

  6. Hologic Inc., Hillsborough, NC, USA

    Loren Niklason

Authors
  1. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Diekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Corinne Balleyguier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Diekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean-Charles Piguet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kari Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Abdelnoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Loren Niklason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Skaane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skaane, P., Diekmann, F., Balleyguier, C. et al. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 18, 1134–1143 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation