Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening

Radiation Medicine - Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 408-412

  Yamada, Takayuki ^a   Saito, Mioko ^a   Ishibashi, Tadashi ^a   Tsuboi, Masahiro ^a   Matsuhashi, Toshio ^a   Sato, Akihiro ^a   Saito, Haruo ^a   Takahashi, Shoki ^a   Onuki, Koji ^a   Ouchi, Noriaki ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Full field digital mammography (FFDM); Screen film mammography (SFM); Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; JAPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION RESEARCH; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; JAPAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 19944432121     PISSN: 02882043     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet, 355: 129-134, 2000.
2. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet, 358: 1340-1342, 2001.
3. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 348: 1672-1680, 2003.
4. 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 lesions. Eur Radiol, 12: 1697-1702, 2002.
5. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology, 218: 873-880, 2001.
6. 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, 179: 671-677, 2002.
7. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study. Radiology, 229: 877-884, 2003.
8. 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.
9. Sickles EA. Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. Radiology, 208: 471-475, 1998.
10. Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Sato A, et al. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. Radiat Med, 21: 166-171, 2003.
11. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcification: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol, 12: 2679-2683, 2002.
12. Saito M, Ohnuki K, Yamada T, et al. Efficacy of computer-aided detection system for screening mammography. J Jpn Assoc Breast Cancer Screen, 11: 251-256, 2002. (in Jpse.)
13. Welsh CR, Young B, Gopalakrishnan V, et al. ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial informatics infrastructure. In Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, (Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG, Doi K, Reiber JHC eds.; Springer, Germany), pp. 503-508, 2002.