Hard-copy versus soft-copy with and without simple image manipulation for detection of pulmonary nodules and masses

Purpose: To compare interpretation performance on soft-copy presentations, with and without simple image manipulation, and on unmodified hard-copy presentations with regard to detection of pulmonary nodules and masses. Material and Methods: Fifty chest digital radiograph combinations of patients with a total of 60 nodules, 32 of which were 2.0 cm in diameter, were selected for the study. Three readers evaluated three separate image formats: unmodified hard-and soft-copies, and soft-copies with simple image manipulation of lung and mediastinum window settings, and zooming The screen display was 1600×1200 pixels with 8 bits/pixel. Results: The sensitivity, accuracy, detectability, and Az value of the soft-copy systems were clearly inferior to hard-copy evaluation. The mean Az values were 0.921 for unmodified hard-copy, 0.820 for image-manipulated soft-copy, and 0.781 for unmodified soft-copy. Conclusion: Soft-copy interpretations were not as sensitive in detecting pulmonary nodules and masses as hard-copy evaluation.