AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Digital mammography: An overview

Radiographics

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1747-1760

  Mahesh, Mahadevappa ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.1215, 00.30; Breast radiography, technology, 00.1215; Physics; Radiography, digital, 00.1215

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; PHOSPHORUS; SELENIUM; SILICON;

ACCREDITATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIODE; DYNAMICS; EVALUATION; FIBER OPTICS; FILM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; RADIATION DOSE; RECORDING; REVIEW; SCINTISCANNING; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

EID: 10044263364     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.246045102     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54:8-29.
2. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341:973-978.
3. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; (22):87-92.
4. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:643-649.
5. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 1996; 199:811-817.
6. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468.
7. Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 1996; 51:277-281.
8. Yaffe MJ. AAPM tutorial. Physics of mammography: image recording process. RadioGraphics 1990; 10:341-363.
9. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography: image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:871-898.
10. Hendrick RE, Berns EA. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:701-718.
11. Bushberg JT, Siebert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2002.
12. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:893-901.
13. Pisano ED. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 2000; 214:26-28.
14. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:266-280.
15. Williams MB, Fajardo LL. Digital mammography: performance considerations and current detector designs. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:429-437.
16. White J. FDA approves system for digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:442.
17. Full-field digital mammography. TEC Bull (online) 2002; 19:1-4.
18. Rowlands JA, Hunter DM, Araj N. X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: a photoinduced discharge readout method for digital mammography. Med Phys 1991; 18:421-431.
19. Yaffe MJ. Direct digital mammography using a scanned-slot CCD imaging system. Med Prog Technol 1993; 19:13-21.
20. Tesic MM, Piccaro MF, Munier B. Full field digital mammography scanner. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:2-17.
21. Muller S. Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:25-34.
22. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, et al. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med Phys 2000; 27:558-567.
23. Zhao W, Rowlands JA. X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: feasibility of a flat panel self-scanned detector for digital radiology. Med Phys 1995; 22:1595-1604.
24. Zhao W, Ji WG, Debrie A, Rowlands JA. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector. Med Phys 2003; 30:254-263.
25. Kheddache S, Kvist H. Digital mammography using storage phosphor plate technique: optimizing image processing parameters for the visibility of lesions and anatomy. Eur J Radiol 1997; 24: 237-244.
26. Jouan B. Digital mammography performed with computed radiography technology. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:18-24.
27. Radiology fee schedule for film and digital screening and diagnostic mammography examinations-transmittal 1775, effective April 1, 2003. Medicare carriers manual part 3, publication 14-3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002; 425-431.
28. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 2003; 226:153-160.
29. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display: the International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology 2000; 216:820-830.
30. 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 2001; 218:873-880.
31. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:671-677.
32. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002; 29:830-834.
33. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 2003; 30:334-340.
34. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:478-482.
35. Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:645-652.
36. Shah AJ, Wang J, Yamada T, Fajardo LL. Digital mammography: a review of technical development and clinical applications. Clin Breast Cancer 2003; 4:63-70.
37. Nawano S, Murakami K, Moriyama N, Kobatake H, Takeo H, Shimura K. Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography. Invest Radiol 1999; 34:310-316.
38. Nishikawa RM. Computer-aided diagnosis complements full-field digital mammography. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 1999; 21 (9):47-51, 75.
39. Roehrig J, Castellino RA. The promise of computer aided detection in digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 1999; 31:35-39.
40. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205:399-406.
41. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7: 1085-1097.
42. Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48:R65-R106.
43. Johns PC, Drost DJ, Yaffe MJ, Fenster A. Dualenergy mammography: initial experimental results. Med Phys 1985; 12:297-304.
44. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228:842-850.
45. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261-268.