Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 186, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 38-43

  Schueller, Gerd ^a   Kaindl, Elisabeth ^a   Matzek, Wolfgang K ^a   Semturs, Friedrich ^a   Schueller Weidekamm, Claudia ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Digital imaging; Full field digital mammography; Mammography; Printers

Indexed keywords

ADIPOSE TISSUE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LASER; LUMINANCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PAPER; PECTORALIS MAJOR MUSCLE; PHANTOM; PRINTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN; SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER PERIPHERALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LASERS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 33644846089     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.1583     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Boyle P, Leon ME, Maisonneuve P, et al. Cancer control in women: update 2003. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 83[suppl 1]:179-202
2. Emens LA, Davidson NE. The follow-up of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2003; 30:338-348
3. Brewster A, Helzlsouer K. Breast cancer epidemiology, prevention, and early detection. Curr Opin Oncol 2001; 13:420-425
4. Irwig L, Houssami N, van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:2118-2122
5. Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 82:319-326
6. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1672-1680
7. 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, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 2001:475-481
8. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Hanna LG, et al. Multicenter clinical assessment of the Fischer SenoScan digital mammography system. (abstr) Radiology 2001; 221(P):285
9. 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 2002; 179:671-677
10. 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
11. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts presenting for problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 2003; 226:153-160
12. 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 2001; 176:1241-1248
13. Shah AJ, Wang J, Yamada T, et al. Digital mammography: a review of technical development and clinical applications. Clin Breast Cancer 2003; 4:63-70
14. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. RadioGraphics 2000; 20:1479-1491
15. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, Hamm B. Reduced-dose digital mammography of skin calcifications. AJR 2002; 178:473-474
16. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline no. 13. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994:65 (publication no. 95-0632)
17. Habbal F, Cargill EB, Schuh D, et al. New digital hard-copy system for medical diagnostics. Proc SPIE 1993; 1897:204-214
18. Ibbott GS, Zhang Y, Mohiuddin M, et al. Reproduction of radiologic images on plain paper. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:755-760
19. Wilcox PA. American College of Radiology (ACR) mammography accreditation program: guidelines. Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co 1991; 72:17
20. GE Medical Systems. Service manual of Senographe 2000D Product data 9281-PE. Versailles, France: GE Medical Systems, 2001
21. American College of Radiology Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1999:68-70, 142, 185-196, 208-209, 287-294
22. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998
23. Davies M, Fleiss JL. Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics 1982; 38:1047-1051
24. Gahleitner A, Kreuzer S, Schick S, et al. Dry versus conventional laser imagers: film properties and image quality. Radiology 1999; 210:871-875
25. Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002; 224:871-880