Digital Mammography Integrated with PACS: Real World Issues, Considerations, Workflow Solutions, and Reading Paradigms

[Future of mammography-based imaging]

Mammography is the central diagnostic method for clinical diagnostics of breast cancer and the breast cancer screening program. In the clinical routine complementary methods, such as ultrasound, tomosynthesis and optional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are already combined for the diagnostic procedure. Future developments will utilize investigative procedures either as a hybrid (combination of several different imaging modalities in one instrument) or as a fusion method (the technical fusion of two or more of these methods) to implement fusion imaging into diagnostic algorithms. For screening there are reasonable hypotheses to aim for studies that individualize the diagnostic process within the screening procedure. Individual breast cancer risk prediction and individualized knowledge about sensitivity and specificity for certain diagnostic methods could be tested. The clinical implementation of these algorithms is not yet in sight.

Perceived sufficiency of full-field digital mammograms with and without irreversible image data compression for comparison with next-year mammograms

Problems associated with the large file sizes of digital mammograms have impeded the integration of digital mammography with picture archiving and communications systems. Digital mammograms irreversibly compressed by the novel wavelet Access Over Network (AON) compression algorithm were compared with lossless-compressed digital mammograms in a blinded reader study to evaluate the perceived sufficiency of irreversibly compressed images for comparison with next-year mammograms. Fifteen radiologists compared the same 100 digital mammograms in three different comparison modes: lossless-compressed vs 20:1 irreversibly compressed images (mode 1), lossless-compressed vs 40:1 irreversibly compressed images (mode 2), and 20:1 irreversibly compressed images vs 40:1 irreversibly compressed images (mode 3). Compression levels were randomly assigned between monitors. For each mode, the less compressed of the two images was correctly identified no more frequently than would occur by chance if all images were identical in compression. Perceived sufficiency for comparison with next-year mammograms was achieved by 97.37% of the lossless-compressed images and 97.37% of the 20:1 irreversibly compressed images in mode 1, 97.67% of the lossless-compressed images and 97.67% of the 40:1 irreversibly compressed images in mode 2, and 99.33% of the 20:1 irreversibly compressed images and 99.19% of the 40:1 irreversibly compressed images in mode 3. In a random-effect analysis, the irreversibly compressed images were found to be noninferior to the lossless-compressed images. Digital mammograms irreversibly compressed by the wavelet AON compression algorithm were as frequently judged sufficient for comparison with next-year mammograms as lossless-compressed digital mammograms.

Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography

PURPOSE

To compare radiologists' performance in detecting breast cancer when reading full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images either displayed on monitors or printed on film.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study received investigational review board approval and was HIPAA compliant, with waiver of informed consent. A reader study was conducted in which 26 radiologists read screening FFDM images displayed on high-resolution monitors (soft-copy digital) and printed on film (hard-copy digital). Three hundred thirty-three cases were selected from the Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial screening study (n = 49,528). Of these, 117 were from patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 15 months of undergoing screening mammography. The digital mammograms were displayed on mammographic workstations and printed on film according to the manufacturer's specifications. Readers read both hard-copy and soft-copy images 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist read a subset of the total images. Twenty-two readers were assigned to evaluate images from one of three FFDM systems, and four readers were assigned to evaluate images from two mammographic systems. Each radiologist assigned a malignancy score on the basis of overall impression by using a seven-point scale, where 1 = definitely not malignant and 7 = definitely malignant.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for the primary comparison. The AUCs for soft-copy and hard-copy were 0.75 and 0.76, respectively (95% confidence interval: -0.04, 0.01; P = .36). Secondary analyses showed no significant differences in AUCs on the basis of manufacturer type, lesion type, or breast density.

CONCLUSION

Soft-copy reading does not provide an advantage in the interpretation of digital mammograms. However, the display formats were not optimized and display software remains an evolving process, particularly for soft-copy reading.