Comparison of Screen-film and Full-field Digital Mammography: Image Contrast and Lesion Characterization

Radiation Medicine - Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 166-171

  Yamada, Takayuki ^a   Ishibashi, Tadashi ^a   Sato, Akihiro ^a   Saito, Mioko ^a   Saito, Haruo ^a   Matsuhashi, Toshio ^a   Takahashi, Shoki ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Full field digital mammography (FFDM); Image contrast; Screen film mammography (SFM)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL DENSITY; TUMOR BIOPSY; X RAY FILM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0344441731     PISSN: 02882043     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Hermann KP, Funke M, Grabbe E. Physical and technical aspects of digital mammography. Radiologe, 42: 256-260, 2002. (in German)
2. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiographics, 18: 893-901, 1998.
3. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesion. Eur Radiol, 12: 1697-1702, 2002.
4. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, 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.
5. Dance DR, Klang AT, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Smith IAC, Carlsson GA. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol, 73: 1056-1067, 2000.
6. 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 Am J Roentgenol, 176: 1241-1248, 2001.
7. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of "early" breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 143: 461-464, 1984.
8. Buchbinder SS, Leicher IS, Lederman RB, et al. Can the size of microcalcifications predict malignancy of clusters at mammography? Acad Radiol, 9: 18, 2002.
9. Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Sickeles EA. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol, 22: 581-589, 1987.
10. Oestmann JW, Kopans D, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, Rubens JR, Greene R. A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammography in the detection of malignant microcalcifications. Invest Raidol, 23: 725-728, 1988.
11. Karssemeijer N, Frieling JT, Hendriks JH. Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol, 28: 413-419, 1993.
12. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N, et al. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol, 8: 454-466, 2001.
13. Pisano ED, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M. Perspective on digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol, 36: 195-200, 2001.