Current status of digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer

Current Opinion in Oncology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 547-554

  Van Ongeval, Chantal ^a   Bosmans, Hilde ^a   Van Steen, André ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Breast imaging; Breast radiography; Cancer screening; Digital mammography

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING;

EID: 33748902566     PISSN: 10408746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.cco.0000245306.21403.88     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chan HHT, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammography screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724-1731.
2. Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, van Dijck JA, et al. Decreased rates of advanced breast cancer due to mammography screening in The Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2004; 91:861-867.
3. Van Engen R, Young K, Bosmans H, Thijssen M. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part B: Digital mammography. In: the Fourth Edition of the European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening. European Commission. http://www.euref.org. [Accessed 17 August 2006]
4. Noel A, Thibault F. Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1990-1998.
5. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:38-44. This paper gives a structured overview of the different aspects of digital mammography with clear conclusions on each topic.
6. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2679-2683.
7. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-observer performance study. Radiology 2005; 237:13-44. This study provides useful information about the kind of lesions detected with FFDM and with SFM.
8. Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Ciatoo S, Gentile E. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55:258-263.
9. Vuylsteke P, Schoeters E. Multiscale image contrast manipulaton (MUSICA). Proc SPIE 1994; 2167:551-560.
10. 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.
11. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 2000; 216:820-830.
12. Bacher K, Smeets P, De Hauwere A, et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Eur J Radiol 2006; 58:471-479.
13. Bosmans H, Carton AK, Rogge F, et al. Overview of digital mammography image quality. Rad Prot Dos 2005; 117:120-130. This article not only reviews the most important technical parameters of digital mammography, but also shows us the actual limitations of this technology.
14. Carton A, Bosmans H, Van Ongeval C, et al. Development and validation of a simulation procedure to study the visibility of micro-calcifications in digital mammogram. Med Phys 2003; 30:2234-2240.
15. Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A. Current challenges of full field digital mammography. Rad Prot Dos 2005; 117:148-153. The article presents the challenges of FFDM from a radiologist's point of view.
16. Jacobs J, Deprez T, Rogge F, et al. Validation of a new dynamic pattern for daily quality control of medical screen devices. In: 91st Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the RSNA; McCormick Place, Chicago; November 2005.
17. Moberg K, Bjurstam N, Wilczed B, et al. Computed assisted detection of interval breast cancers. Eur Radiol 2001; 39:104-110.
18. Obenauer S, Sohns C, Werner C, Grabbe E. Computer-aided detection in full field digital mammography: detection in dependence of the BI-RADS categories. Breast J 2006; 12:16-19.
19. Zheng B, Hardesty LA, Poller W, et al. Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment - initial experience. Radiology 2003; 230:595-597.
20. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. The Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884.
21. Lewin FM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs MF. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880.
22. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program. The Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232:197-204.
23. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783. This article reports the results of the largest clinical trial of FFDM in a screening environment. It will serve as baseline for the introduction of FFDM in screening.
24. Dershaw DD. Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 2006; 12:99-102.
25. Ciatto S, Brancato B, Baglioni R, Turci M. A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Rad 2006; 57:69-75. Good overview of the impact of the workload on the different members of the radiology department and of the cost of a digital system.
26. Jong RA, Jaffe MJ. Digital Mammography: 2005. Can Assoc Radiol J 2005; 56:319-323. This paper gives a short practical overview of the status of digital mammography.