Related Experiment Videos
Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography
Silvia Obenauer1, Klaus-Peter Hermann, Katharina Marten
1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany. obenauerheuser@yahoo.de
Journal of Digital Imaging
|January 30, 2004
Summary
This study compared reading digital mammograms on screen versus paper. Soft copy reading is feasible and allows radiologists to utilize digital system benefits, showing comparable accuracy to hard copy reading for malignant lesion classification.
Area of Science:
- Radiology
- Medical Imaging
- Diagnostic Accuracy
Background:
- Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is increasingly used.
- Comparison of soft copy (monitor) versus hard copy (print) reading is essential for workflow optimization.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic performance of soft copy versus hard copy reading of FFDM images.
- To evaluate sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in classifying lesions using BI-RADS categories.
Main Methods:
- Sixty FFDM mammograms (29 malignant, 31 benign) were reviewed by four radiologists.
- Images were read from hard copy prints and soft copy on high-resolution monitors.
- A minimum two-month interval separated reading sessions for each radiologist.
Main Results:
- Sensitivity for malignant lesions varied between readers but showed no consistent difference between soft and hard copy.
- Specificity showed variability, with soft copy reading yielding higher specificity in some cases.
- Overall diagnostic accuracy for BI-RADS classification of malignant lesions was comparable between soft and hard copy reading.
Conclusions:
- Soft copy reading of FFDM images is a viable option.
- Radiologists can leverage digital system advantages with soft copy reading.
- The diagnostic performance is comparable to traditional hard copy reading.