Screen-Film Mammography and Soft-Copy Full-Field Digital Mammography: Comparison in the Patients with Microcalcifications

OBJECTIVE We wanted to compare the ability of screen-film mammography (SFM) and soft-copy full-field digital mammography (s-FFDM) on two different monitors to detect and characterize microcalcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS The images of 40 patients with microcalcifications(three patients had malignant lesion and 37 patients had benign lesion), who underwent both SFM and FFDM at an interval of less than six months, were independently evaluated by three readers. Three reading sessions were undertaken for SFM and for FFDM on a mammography-dedicated review workstation (RWS, 2K x 2.5K), and for FFDM on a high-resolution PACS monitor (1.7K x 2.3K). The image quality, breast composition and the number and conspicuity of the microcalcifications were evaluated using a three-point rating method, and the mammographic assessment was classified into 4 categories (normal, benign, low concern and moderate to great concern). RESULTS The image quality, the number and conspicuity of the microcalcifications by s-FFDM (on the RWS, PACS and both) were superior to those by SFM in 85.0%, 80.0% and 52.5% of the cases, respectively (p < 0.01), and those by the s-FFDM on the two different monitors were similar in 15.0%, 12.5% and 35.0% of the cases, respectively (p > 0.01). The mammographic assessment category for the microcalcifications in the three reading sessions was similar. CONCLUSION s-FFDM gives a superior image quality to SFM and it is better at evaluating microcalcifications. In addition, s-FFDM with the PACS monitor is comparable to s-FFDM with the RWS for evaluating microcalcifications.