Digital mammography

Breast Disease

Volumn 10, Issue 3-4, 1998, Pages 127-135

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Yaffe, Martin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0031689067     PISSN: 08886008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/BD-1998-103-413     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of Screening Mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 274(5):381-382.
2. Thurfjell EL, Lindgren JA. Breast Cancer Survival rates with mammographic screening: similar favorable survival rates for women younger and those older than 50 years. Radiology 1996; 201(2):309-316.
3. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982; 32(4):194-225.
4. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Screening for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85(20): 1644-56.
5. Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 nonpalpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 1996; 51(4):277-281.
6. Sickles E. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179(2):463-468.
7. Smart C. The role of mammography in the prevention of mortality from breast cancer. Cancer Prev 1990; (June):1-16.
8. Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Adler DD. Localization and needle aspiration of breast lesions: complications in 370 cases. AJR 1991; 157:711-714.
9. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988; 168:661-663.
10. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, McGwney W, Hendee WR. The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. JAMA 1988; 259:1512-1519.
11. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Chow S. Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening. Radiology 1991; 178:387-391.
12. Haus A. Technologic improvements in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1990; 174:628-637.
13. Feig SA, Ehrlich SM. Estimation of radiation risk from screening mammography: recent trends and comparison with expected benefits. Radiology; 174:638-647.
14. Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183:629-630.
15. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. current status of digital mammography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1996; 17(5):424-443.
16. Chan HP, Doi K, Vyborny CJ, et al. Improvement in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms. The potential of computer-aided diagnosis. Invest Radiol 1990; 25(10):1102-1110.
17. Kegelmeyer WP, Pruneda JM, Bourland PD, Hillis A, Riggs MW, Nipper ML. Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. Radiology 1994; 191:331-337.
18. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205(2):399-406.