Digital mammography

Radiology

Volumn 234, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 353-362

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Yaffe, Martin J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTENNA; BRIGHTNESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTRAST; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION; RADIATION ABSORPTION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PHYSICS; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; RADIOLOGY; REVIEW; TELEMAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

ADULT; CLINICAL TRIALS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; TELECOMMUNICATIONS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 12344251753     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342030897     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Jeunehomme F, Iordache R, Muller SL, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ. Controlling gray-level variation in contrast-enhanced digital mammography: design of a calibration procedure. Proc SPIE 2003; 5030: 338-348.
2. Albagli D, Possin GE, Lee JU, et al. Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat panel x-ray detector for mammography. Proc SPIE 2003; 5030:553-563.
3. Tapiovaara MJ, Wagner RF. SNR and DQE analysis of broad spectrum x-ray imaging. Phys Med Biol 1985; 30:519-529.
4. Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. IWDM 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, Wis: Medical Physics, 2001; 475-481.
5. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 879-886.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884.
9. Galen B, Staab E, Pisano ED. Congressional update: report from the Biomedical Imaging Program of the National Cancer Institute-American College of Radiology Imaging Network: the digital mammographic imaging screening trial-an update. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:374-375.
10. Hillman BJ, Gatsonis C, Sullivan DC. American College of Radiology Imaging Network: new national cooperative group for conducting clinical trials of medical imaging technologies. Radiology 1999; 213:641-645.
11. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223:483-488.
12. Hemminger BM, Dillon A, Johnston RE, Muller K, Pisano ED, Deluca M. Evaluation of the effect of display luminance on the feature detection of simulated masses in mammograms. Proc SPIE 1997; 3036: 12.
13. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 2000; 216:820-830.
14. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228:842-850.
15. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229:261-268.
16. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205:399-406.
17. Sickles EA. Computer-aided diagnosis and telemammography: clinical perspective. In: Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, eds. Syllabus: physical aspects of breast imaging-current and future considerations. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1999; 283-285.
18. Lou SL, Sickles EA, Huang HK, et al. Full-field direct digital telemammography: technical components, study protocols, and preliminary results. IEEE Trans Int Technol Biomed 1997; 1:270-278.
19. O'Shaughnessy K, Castellino R, Muller S et al. Computer aided detection (CAD) or 90 biopsy-proven breast cancer cases acquired on a full field digital mammography (FFDM) system (abstr). Radiology 2001; 221(P):471.