Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: Comparison in the patients with microcalcifications

Korean Journal of Radiology

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 214-220

  Hye, Seong Kim ^a   Han, Boo Kyung ^a   Choo, Ki Seok ^a   Yong, Hwan Jeon ^a   Kim, Jung Han ^a   Yeon, Hyeon Choe ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Breast radiography; Digital Mammography; Microcalcification; Radiography; Screens and films; Soft copy reading

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST DISEASE; CALCINOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY;

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

EID: 31144434403     PISSN: 12296929     EISSN: 12296929     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2005.6.4.214     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Sickels EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;46:661-663
2. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1205-1230
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 lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697-1702
4. Hermann KP, Hundertmark C, Funke M, Brenndorff AV, Grabbe E. Digital mammography in direct magnification technique using a large-area amorphous silicon X-ray detector. Rofo 1999;170:503-506
5. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printedfilm display. Radiology 2002;223:483-488
6. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs. screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679-2683
7. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADSTM), 3rd ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, Va., 1998
8. Brown H, Prescott R. Applied mixed model in medicine. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999:199-260
9. Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the national cancer institute. Radiology 1992;183:629-630
10. Kheddache S, Thilander-Klang A, Lanhede B, Mansson LG, Bjurstam N, Ackerholm P, et al. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques. Eur Radiol 1999;9:591-597
11. Funke M, Hermann KP, Breiter N, Hundertmark C, Sachs J, Gruhl T, et al. Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications. Rofo 1997;167:174-179
12. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, Dorsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001;218:873-880
13. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, 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 2000;176:1241-1248
14. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Grabbe E. Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography. Rofo 2000;172:940-945
15. Leung JW. New modalities in breast imaging: digital mammography, positron emission tomography, and sestamibi scintimammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:467-482
16. James JJ. The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1-10
17. Hayt DB, Alexander S, Drakakis J, Berdebes N. Filmless in 60 days: the impact of picture archiving and communications systems within a large urban hospital. J Digit Imaging 2001;14:62-71