Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography

Author:

Liang Zhigang1,Du Xiangying1,Guo Xiaojuan2,Rong Dongdong1,Kang Ruiying3,Mao Guangyun2,Liu Jiabin1,Li Kuncheng1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Radiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

2. Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Environment and Public Health, Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China

3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Inner Mongolia Medical College, Huhhot, China

Abstract

Background: Paper printers have been used to document radiological findings in some hospitals. It is critical to establish whether paper printers can achieve the same efficacy and quality as dry laser printers for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Purpose: To compare the image quality and detection rate of dry laser printers and paper printers for FFDM. Material and Methods: Fifty-five cases (25 with single clustered microcalcifications and 30 controls) were selected by a radiologist not participating in the image review. All images were printed on film and paper by one experienced mammography technologist using the processing algorithm routinely used for our mammograms. Two radiologists evaluated hard copies from dry laser printers and paper printers for image quality and detectability of clustered microcalcifications. For the image quality comparisons, agreement between the reviewers was evaluated by means of kappa statistics. The significance of differences between both of the printers was determined using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. The detection rate of two printing systems was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: From 110 scores (55 patients, two readers) per printer system, the following quality results were achieved for dry laser printer images: 70 (63.6%) were rated as good and 40 (36.4%) as moderate. By contrast, for the paper printer images, 25 scores (22.7%) were rated as good and 85 (77.3%) as moderate. Therefore, the image quality of the dry laser printer was superior to that achieved by the paper printer ( P=0.00). The average area-under-the-curve (Az) values for the dry laser printer and the paper printer were 0.991 and 0.805, respectively. The difference was 0.186. Results of ROC analysis showed significant difference in observer performance between the dry laser printer and paper printer ( P=0.0015). Conclusion: The performance of dry laser printers is superior to that of paper printers. Paper printers should not be used in FFDM.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3