TY - JOUR
T1 - Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
AU - Skaane, Per
AU - Diekmann, Felix
AU - Balleyguier, Corinne
AU - Diekmann, Susanne
AU - Piguet, Jean Charles
AU - Young, Kari
AU - Abdelnoor, Michael
AU - Niklason, Loren
PY - 2008/6/1
Y1 - 2008/6/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Breast neoplasms
KW - Breast radiography
KW - Cancer screening
KW - Comparative studies
KW - Full-field digital mammography
KW - Interobserver variation
KW - Radiography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43449096899&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0
DO - 10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 18301902
AN - SCOPUS:43449096899
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 18
SP - 1134
EP - 1143
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 6
ER -