Analogic versus digital mammographic examination a radiological study of mammary microcalcifications on 52 surgical samples;Mammografia analogica versus mammografia digitale. Studio radiologico delle microcalcificazioni mammarie su 52 pezzi operatori

Radiologia Medica

Volumn 106, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 297-304

  Di Nubila, Brunella ^a   Cassano, Enrico ^a   Origgi, Daniela ^a   Treviganti, Roberto ^a   Bozzini, Anna ^a   Cernigliaro, Franco ^a   Faissola, Barbara ^a   Meneghetti, Lorenza ^a   Renne, Giuseppe ^a   Balestreri, Nicola ^a   Luini, Alberto ^a   Bellomi, Massimo ^a,b  

^a EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Digital mammography; Microcalcifications, mammography unpalpable lesions, breast

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST LESION; BREAST SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MICRORADIOGRAPHY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BREAST DISEASES; CALCINOSIS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 0344307388     PISSN: 00338362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Tabàr L: Teaching course of mammography. Diagnosis and in-depth differential diagnosis of breast diseases. Mammography Education Inc. Uppsala, Sweden, 2000.
2. Gaspard-Bakhach S, Dilhydy MH, Bonichon F et al: Roc analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography. J Radiol 81:133-140, 2000.
3. Bick U: Full-field digital mammography. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 172:957-964, 2000.
4. Grebe S. Diekmann F, Bick U et al: Initial clinical experiences with digital full-field mammography. Zentralbl Gynakol 122:589-594, 2000.
5. Kallergi M: Digital mammography: from theory to practice. Cancer Control 5:72-79, 1998.
6. Perlet C, Becker C, Sittek H et al: A comparison of digital luminescence mammography and conventional film-screen system: preliminary results of clinical evaluation. Eur J Med Res 3:165-171, 1998.
7. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Schorn C et al: Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcification. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr, 172:646-650, 2000.
8. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Kontogiannis E, Gourtsoyiannis N: Film-Screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 36:726-733, 2001.
9. Obenauer S, Luftner S, von Heyden U et al: Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12: 1697-1702, 2002.
10. Statistica in medicina. Thoeodor Colton Ed. Piccin, Padova, 2002.
11. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ et al: Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873-880, 2001.
12. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Schom C et al: Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 172:1052-1056, 2000.
13. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al: Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR 176:1241-1248, 2001.
14. Fischer U: Conventional or digital mammography. Wien Med Wochenschr 151:552-555, 2001.