Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Discrepancies between film and digital mammography interpretations
Author(s): Poonam Malhotra; Maria Kallergi; Dominik Alexander; Claudia G. Berman; Mary Gardner; Marla R. Hersh; Lisa Hooper; Jihai J. Kim; Priya Venugopal
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency and reasons of disagreement between film and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) interpretations observed in a prospective clinical trial performed with the GE Senographe 2000D system. The data from 643 mammography examinations comprising both digital and film mammograms were analyzed for this purpose. Reports indicated that 455 findings were identified on the digital softcopy reading and 457 findings on the standard film mammography with 408 discrepancies. Findings with discrepancies were matched and analyzed. A reason was identified and a relative conspicuity score of 0 to 10 was assigned to each finding at the time of resolution; 0 corresponded to a finding highly conspicuous on digital, 10 to a finding highly conspicuous on film, and 5 denoted equal visibility on both. After review, agreement was established between the two modalities in 73.3% of the findings; 13.5% of findings were seen better on digital and 13.2% of the findings were seen better on film. Approximately 63% of the discrepancies occurred due to variability in the reporting style of the radiologists and/or unavailability of prior films for comparison. Three cancer cases were identified in this study; two were seen on both modalities and one only on film. In conclusion, no statistically significant differences were observed between digital and film mammography, a result that despite the small size of our dataset is in agreement with previous reports. Inter-observer variability, display differences, and presentation disagreements are the main reasons for interpretation differences that are primarily identified in the classification and BIRADS assignment.

Paper Details

Date Published: 12 April 2002
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 4686, Medical Imaging 2002: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (12 April 2002); doi: 10.1117/12.462669
Show Author Affiliations
Poonam Malhotra, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Maria Kallergi, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Dominik Alexander, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Claudia G. Berman, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Mary Gardner, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Marla R. Hersh, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Lisa Hooper, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Jihai J. Kim, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)
Priya Venugopal, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Ctr. and Research Institute/Univ. of South Florida (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 4686:
Medical Imaging 2002: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Dev Prasad Chakraborty; Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top