Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences of radiologists among eight different image processing algorithms applied to digital mammograms obtained for screening and diagnostic imaging tasks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight images representing histologically proved masses or calcifications were obtained by using three clinically available digital mammographic units. Images were processed and printed on film by using manual intensity windowing, histogram-based intensity windowing, mixture model intensity windowing, peripheral equalization, multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA), contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization, Trex processing, and unsharp masking. Twelve radiologists compared the processed digital images with screen-film mammograms obtained in the same patient for breast cancer screening and breast lesion diagnosis. RESULTS: For the screening task, screen-film mammograms were preferred to all digital presentations, but the acceptability of images processed with Trex and MUSICA algorithms were not significantly different. All printed digital images were preferred to screen-film radiographs in the diagnosis of masses; mammograms processed with unsharp masking were significantly preferred. For the diagnosis of calcifications, no processed digital mammogram was preferred to screen-film mammograms. CONCLUSION: When digital mammograms were preferred to screen-film mammograms, radiologists selected different digital processing algorithms for each of three mammographic reading tasks and for different lesion types. Soft-copy display will eventually allow radiologists to select among these options more easily.     

Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type

PURPOSE: To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist's performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS: Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P =.0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P <.0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images. CONCLUSION: Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.     

Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality,detectability and characterization of lesions

The objective of this study was to compare screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) regarding image quality as well as detectability and characterization of lesions using equivalent images of the same patient acquired with both systems. Two mammography units were used, one with a screen-film system (Senographe DMR) and the other with a digital detector (Senographe 2000D, both GEMS). Screen-film and digital mammograms were performed on 55 patients with cytologically or histologically proven tumors on the same day. Together with these, 75 digital mammograms of patients without tumor and the corresponding previous screen-film mammograms not older than 1.5 years were reviewed by three observers in a random order. Contrast, exposure, and the presence of artifacts were evaluated. Different details, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and the parenchymal structures, were judged according to a three-point ranking scale. Finally, the detectability of microcalcifications and lesions were compared and correlated to histology. Image contrast was judged to be good in 76%, satisfactory in 20%, and unsatisfactory in 4% of screen-film mammograms. Digital mammograms were judged to be good in 99% and unsatisfactory in 1% of cases. Improper exposure of screen-film system occurred in 18% (10% overexposed and 8% underexposed). Digital mammograms were improperly exposed in 4% of all cases but were of acceptable quality after post-processing. Artifacts, most of them of no significance, were found in 78% of screen-film and in none of the digital mammograms. Different anatomical regions, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and dense parenchymal areas, were better visualized in digital than in screen-film mammography. All malignant tumors were seen by the three radiologists; however, digital mammograms allowed a better characterization of these lesions to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS;) [corrected] categories (FFDM better than SFM in 23 of 165 vs 9 of 165 judged cases in SFM). In conclusion, digital mammography offers a consistent, high image quality in combination with a better contrast and without artifacts. Lesion detection in digital images was equal to that in screen-film images; however, categorization of the lesions to the BI-RADS classification was slightly better.     

Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications

We investigated the spatial resolution requirement and the effect of unsharp-mask filtering on the detectability of subtle microcalcifications in digital mammography. Digital images were obtained by digitizing conventional screen-film mammograms with a 0.1 X 0.1 mm2 pixel size, processed with unsharp masking, and then reconstituted on film with a Fuji image processing/simulation system (Fuji Photo Film Co., Tokyo, Japan). Twenty normal cases and 12 cases with subtle microcalcifications were included. Observer performance experiments were conducted to assess the detectability of subtle microcalcifications in the conventional, the unprocessed digital, and the unsharp-masked mammograms. The observer response data were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and LROC (ROC with localization) analyses. Our results indicate that digital mammograms obtained with 0.1 X 0.1 mm2 pixels provide lower detectability than the conventional screen-film mammograms. The detectability of microcalcifications in the digital mammograms is improved by unsharp-mask filtering; the processed mammograms still provide lower accuracy than the conventional mammograms, however, chiefly because of increased false-positive detection rates for the processed images at each subjective confidence level. Viewing unprocessed digital and unsharp-masked images in pairs resulted in approximately the same detectability as that obtained with the unsharp-masked images alone. However, this result may be influenced by the fact that the same limited viewing time was necessarily divided between the two images.     

Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography System with that of standard screen-film mammography in a population of women presenting for screening or diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrollment of patients took place at six different breast-imaging centers between 1997 and 1999. A total of 247 cases were selected for inclusion in the final reader study. All known cancer cases were included (111) from all six participating sites representing 45% of the total cases. The remaining 136 cases (55%) were randomly selected from all available benign or negative cases from three of the six sites. A complete case consisted of both a (unilateral or bilateral) digital and screen-film mammogram of the same patient. Eight radiologists interpreted the cases in laser-printed digital and screen-film hardcopy formats. The study was designed to detect differences of 0.05 in the ROC area under the curve (AUC) between digital and screen-film radiologist interpretation performance. RESULTS: The average AUC for the Senoscan digital was 0.715 for the 8 readers. The average AUC for screen-film was 0.765. The difference AUC of -0.05 falls within the 95% confidence interval (-0.101, 0.002). The average sensitivity was 66% and specificity 67% for SenoScan full-field digital mammography. The average screen-film mammography sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the Fischer Senoscan and screen-film mammography was detected in this study.     

Independent evaluation of computer classification of malignant and benign calcifications in full-field digital mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) technique can accurately classify breast calcifications in full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) as malignant or benign. The computer technique was developed previously on screen-film mammograms (SFMs) in which individual calcifications were identified manually. The present study evaluated the computer technique independently on a new database of FFDM images with automatic detection of the individual calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 49 consecutive FFDM cases (19 cancers) that showed suspicious calcifications. Four mammography radiologists read soft-copy mammograms retrospectively and electronically indicated the region of calcifications in each image. The computer then automatically detected the individual calcifications within the indicated region and analyzed eight features of calcification morphology and distribution to arrive at an estimated likelihood of malignancy. The radiologists entered Breast Imaging Report and Data System assessments before and after seeing the computer results. Performance was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Despite variability in radiologist-indicated regions of calcifications, the computer achieved consistently high performance taking input from the four radiologists (receiver operating characteristic curve area, A(z): 0.80, 0.80, 0.78, and 0.77; differences not statistically significant). Previous results showed that the computer technique achieved an A(z) value of 0.80 on SFMs, which improved radiologists' performance significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The computer technique appears to maintain consistently high performance in classifying calcifications in FFDMs as malignant or benign without requiring substantial modification from its initial development on SFMs. The computer performance appears to be robust with respect to variations in radiologists' input.     

ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnosis performances of radiologists on screen film versus digital mammography. MATERIAL: and methods: Two sets of 123 mammograms, screen film mammography and storage phosphor digital mammography, are studied comparatively with ROC analysis. RESULTS: Phantom study show that conventional method give better scores for usual tension but the detectability of smaller microcalcification is equivalent. To obtain with digital technic the same conventional score you have to increase the radiation dose. Roc Curves, simulated "detection" mode showed that radiologists performed with higher accuracy with conventional system but this difference is weekly statistically significant. ROC Curves, simulated "diagnostic" mode showed the same results wit no statistically significant difference but when the decision to go to the biopsy is the gold standard, ROC Curves were essentially equivalent for both film screen and digital mammography system. The readers consistently considered the digital mammograms to be less suspicious for cancer findings. The agreement study as proposed by the FDA indicate that probability of a positive digital mammograms given a positive screen film is 75% (threshold value 90%) and the probability of a negative digital mammograms given a negative analog film is 85% (threshold value 85%). CONCLUSION: Analysis of specific discrepancies indicate that spatial resolution is an essential limiting factor for digital method but high resolution phosphor plate are interesting in imaging treated breast, radioluscent lesion, fatty benign tumor, hamartoma, intramammary lymph node, breast with prosthesis.     

Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination

We evaluated the image quality of mammograms made by using a new dual-screen, dual-emulsion film combination (Kodak Min-R Fast screen, T-Mat Mll film) that permits reduction of radiation exposure by approximately 50% when compared with a standard single-screen, single-emulsion film system (Kodak Min-R screen, OM-1 film). This new film has been improved when compared with earlier T-Mat M film, including the introduction of an inert dye to reduce light crossover to essentially 0%. Mammogram pairs made with the dual-emulsion film combination and the standard single-emulsion film combination were obtained in 50 patients otherwise undergoing routine mammography. The image pairs were randomized and evaluated by three radiologists who used a three-point scale (better, same, or worse). Each pair was evaluated with regard to parenchymal contrast, sharpness, and latitude, as well as the number and sharpness of calcifications (n = 19) and sharpness of masses (n = 12) when present. All three observers found the dual-emulsion film combination to be better than or the same as the standard with regard to parenchymal sharpness (94-100%), the number and sharpness of calcifications (98-100%), and sharpness of masses (100%). Two observers found the dual-emulsion film combination to be significantly worse (p less than .05) than the standard with respect to parenchymal contrast (72%, 86%), and all three observers rated it significantly worse for film latitude (14 to 42%). Our results suggest that this new dual-emulsion film combination that allows mammography to be performed with less radiation exposure can be used without loss of image quality.     

Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen- film, and digitized film display

Pulverized bone specks and aluminum oxide specks were measured by hand into sizes ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm and then arranged in clusters. These clusters were superimposed on a human breast tissue phantom, and xeromammograms and screen-film mammograms of the clusters were made. The screen-film mammograms were digitized using a high-resolution laser scanner and then displayed on cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Six radiologists independently counted the microcalcifications on the xeromammograms, the screen-film mammograms, and the digitized-film mammograms. The xeromammograms were examined with a magnifying glass; the screen-film images were examined with a magnifying glass and by hot light; and the digitized-film images were examined by electronic magnification and image processing. The bone speck size that corresponded to a mean 50% detectability level for each technique was as follows: xeromammography, 0.550 mm; digitized film, 0.573 mm; and screen-film, 0.661 mm. We postulate that electronic magnification and image processing with edge enhancement can improve the capability of screen-film mammography to enhance the detection of microcalcifications.     

Mammographic image processing using wavelet processing techniques

Mammograms with masses corresponding to biopsy-proven cancer were processed using algorithms based on the wavelet transform. Five radiologists assessed the visibility of malignant masses in ten processed mammograms as compared with the original film images. Mammograms processed using these algorithms demonstrated some improvement in feature visualization. Wavelet-based methods of image enhancement could prove to be useful in mammography and merit further study. Correspondence to: W. Huda     

Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay.

Digital mammography systems allow manipulation of fine differences in image contrast by means of image processing algorithms. Different display algorithms have advantages and disadvantages for the specific tasks required in breast imaging-diagnosis and screening. Manual intensity windowing can produce digital mammograms very similar to standard screen-film mammograms but is limited by its operator dependence. Histogram-based intensity windowing improves the conspicuity of the lesion edge, but there is loss of detail outside the dense parts of the image. Mixture-model intensity windowing enhances the visibility of lesion borders against the fatty background, but the mixed parenchymal densities abutting the lesion may be lost. Contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization can also provide subtle edge information but might degrade performance in the screening setting by enhancing the visibility of nuisance information. Unsharp masking enhances the sharpness of the borders of mass lesions, but this algorithm may make even an indistinct mass appear more circumscribed. Peripheral equalization displays lesion details well and preserves the peripheral information in the surrounding breast, but there may be flattening of image contrast in the nonperipheral portions of the image. Trex processing allows visualization of both lesion detail and breast edge information but reduces image contrast.     

American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) and each participating site and by the IRB and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute. The study was monitored by an independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board, which received interim analyses of data to ensure that the study would be terminated early if indicated by trends in the outcomes. The ACRIN, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute, conducted the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) primarily to compare the diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography in asymptomatic women presenting for screening for breast cancer. Over the 25.5 months of enrollment, a total of 49 528 women were included at the 33 participating sites, which used five different types of digital mammography equipment. All participants underwent both screen-film and digital mammography. The digital and screen-film mammograms of each subject were independently interpreted by two radiologists. If findings of either examination were interpreted as abnormal, subsequent work-up occurred according to the recommendations of the interpreting radiologist. Breast cancer status was determined at biopsy or follow-up mammography 11-15 months after study entry. In addition to the measurement of diagnostic accuracy by using the interpretations of mammograms at the study sites, DMIST included evaluations of the relative cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life effects of digital versus screen-film mammography. Six separate reader studies using the de-identified archived DMIST mammograms will also assess the diagnostic accuracy of each of the individual digital mammography machines versus screen-film mammography machines, the effect of breast density on diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography, and the effect of different rates of breast cancer on the diagnostic accuracy in a reader study.     

Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography

The study purpose was the comparison between doses delivered by a full-field digital mammography system and a screen/film mammography unit, both using the same type of X-ray tube. Exposure parameters and breast thickness were collected for 300 screen/film (GE Senographe DMR) and 296 digital mammograms (GE Senographe 2000D). The entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) was calculated from anode/filter combination, kV_p and mAs values and breast thickness, by simulating spectra through a program based on a catalogue of experimental X-ray spectra. The average glandular dose (AGD) was also computed. Results showed an overall reduction of average glandular dose by 27% of digital over screen/film mammography. The dose saving was about 15% for thin and thick breasts, while it was between 30% and 40% for intermediate thicknesses. Full-field digital mammography dose reduction is allowed by wider dynamic range and higher efficiency of digital detector, which can be exposed at higher energy spectra than screen/film mammography, and by the separation between acquisition and displaying processes.     

New and future developments in screen-film mammography equipment and techniques.

Two improvements in mammography equipment during the last 4 years will greatly affect the practice of mammography during the next decade: dose reduction and improved testing equipment for monitoring the quality of mammography. The increased use of digital radiography has stimulated studies comparing digital mammography with screen-film mammography. Some digital algorithms for detecting clusters of calcifications may have application in screening mammography within the next decade.     

Recent advances in screen-film mammography

Today there are many dedicated mammographic x-ray units available that are capable of providing high-quality screen-film mammograms. Likewise, screen-film combinations designed for mammography are capable of providing images with appropriate contrast, resolution, and noise levels. Proper film processing is most important in order to obtain the appropriate film speed and contrast. A higher-speed screen-film combination designed for mammography can provide mammograms with significantly lower radiation dose, especially for grid and magnification techniques. Designing x-ray units and techniques as well as screen-film combinations with the singular goal of reducing radiation dose will always involve compromises and trade-offs. The key is to always consider optimizing all of the factors that affect image quality: (1) appropriate beam quality, (2) breast compression, (3) consideration of the use of grids, (4) good geometry, (5) selection of an appropriate screen-film combination, and (6) proper film processing. Optimization of all appropriate imaging factors will produce high-quality mammograms at the lowest radiation dose to the patient.     

Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the mammographic characteristics of cancers missed at screening mammography and assess the ability of computer-aided detection (CAD) to mark the missed cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study accrued 1,083 consecutive cases of breast cancer detected at screening mammography. Prior mammograms were available in 427 cases. Of these, 286 had lesions visible in retrospect. The 286 cases underwent blinded review by panels of radiologists; a majority recommended recall for 112 cases. Two experienced radiologists compared prior mammograms in 110 of these cases with the subsequent screening mammograms (when cancer was detected), noting mammographic characteristics of breast density, lesion type, size, morphology, and subjective reasons for possible miss. The prior mammograms were then analyzed with a CAD program. RESULTS: There were 110 patients with 115 cancers. On the prior mammograms with missed cancers, 35 (30%) of the 115 lesions were calcifications, with 17 of 35 (49%) clustered or pleomorphic. Eighty of the 115 (70%) were mass lesions, with 32 of 80 (40%) spiculated or irregular. For calcifications and masses, the most frequently suggested reasons for possible miss were dense breasts (12 of 35; 34%) and distracting lesions (35 of 80; 44%), respectively. CAD marked 30 (86%) of 35 missed calcifications and 58 (73%) of 80 missed masses. CONCLUSION: Detection errors affected cases with calcifications and masses. CAD marked most (77%; 88 of 115) cancers missed at screening mammography that radiologists retrospectively judged to merit recall.     

Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications

The objective of this study was a comparison of a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and a conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) system with respect to the detectability of simulated small masses and microcalcifications in the magnification mode. All images were obtained using 1.8 times magnification. The FFDM images were obtained at radiation dose levels of 1.39, 1.0, 0.7, 0.49 and 0.24 times that of the SFM images. A contrast-detail phantom was used to compare the detection of simulated lesions using a four alternative forced-choice reader study with three readers. The correct observation ratio (COR) was calculated as the fraction of correctly identified lesions to the total number of simulated lesions. Soft-copy reading was performed for all digital images. Direct magnification images acquired with the digital system showed a lower object contrast threshold than those acquired with the conventional system. For equal radiation dose, the digital system provided a significantly increased COR (0.95) compared with the screen-film system (0.82). For simulated microcalcifications, the corresponding difference was 0.90 to 0.72. The digital system allowed equal detection to screen-film at 40% of the radiation dose used for screen film. Digital magnification images are superior to screen-film magnification images for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications even at a lower radiation dose.     

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

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. Presented at ECR, Wien 2006.     

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer. RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A(z)) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A(z) values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.     

Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to compare full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of breast cancer in a screening population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy. RESULTS: Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.