159
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Soft-Copy Reading in Digital Mammography of Mass: Diagnostic Performance of a 5-Megapixel Cathode Ray Tube Monitor Versus a 3-Megapixel Liquid Crystal Display Monitor in a Diagnostic Setting

&
Pages 623-629 | Published online: 04 Aug 2009

References

  • Lewin LM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218: 873–80
  • Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo 2 study. Radiology 2004; 232: 197–204
  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–83
  • Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo 2 study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708–17
  • Saunders RS, Samei E, Baker J, Delong D, Soo MS, Walsh R, et al. Comparison of LCD and CRT display based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1317–26
  • Zuley M, Willison KM, Bonaccio E, Miller DP, Leong DL, Seifert PJ, et al. Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors. Am J Roentogenol 2006; 187: 1492–8
  • Uematsu T, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2007; 48: 714–20
  • Usami H, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T, Fukushima H, Shimamoto K. The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 726–32
  • Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tubes. J Digit Imaging 2000; 13: 155–61
  • American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
  • The Committee of Mammography Guideline (Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology). Mammography guideline. 2nd edition. Tokyo: Igaku Syoin; 2004, (in Japanese).
  • Bacher K, Smeets P, Hauwere AD, Voet T, Duyck P, Verstraete K, et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Eur J Radiol 2006; 58: 471–9
  • Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafyji T, Sakai S, et al. 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 2007; 17: 1365–71
  • Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Day NE, Smith RA, Chen HHT, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 1755–60

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.