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

European Radiology

Volumn 12, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 2188-2191

  Hermann, K P ^a   Obenauer, S ^a   Funke, M ^a   Grabbe, E H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digital radiography; Mammography; Radiographic magnification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; SIMULATION; BREAST DISEASE; CALCINOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0036730375     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1356-8     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Sickles E, Doi K, Genant H (1977) Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies. Radiology 125:69-76
2. Sickles E (1980) Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications. Radiology 137:9-14
3. Oestmann J, Kopans D, Hall D, McCarthy K, Rubens J, Greene R (1988) A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 23:725-728
4. Kithama H (1991) Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer: comparison with film-screen mammography. Nippon Acta Radiol 51:547-560
5. Karssemeijer N, Frieling J, Hendriks J (1993) Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 28:413-419
6. Parkin G (1995) Clinical aspects of direct digital mammography. J Digital Imaging 8:61-66
7. Cowen A, Launders J, Jadav M, Brettle D (1997) Visibility of microcalifications in computed and screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 42:1533-1548
8. Perlet C, Becker C, Sittek H, Pistisch C, Jäger L, Kessler M, Reiser M (1998) A comparison of digital mammography and conventional film-screen system: preliminary results of clinical evaluation. Eur J Med Res 3:165-171
9. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873-880
10. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A, Cutter G (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 176:1241-1248
11. Yip WM, Pang SY, Yim WSW, Kwok CS (2001) ROC curve of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography. Br J Radiol 74:621-628
12. Doi K, Imhof K (1977) Noise reduction by radiographic magnification. Radiology 122:479-487
13. Feig S, Yaffe M (1998) Digital mammography. Radiographics 18:893-901