Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 188, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 399-407

  Krug, Kathrin Barbara ^a   Stützer, Hartmut ^a   Girnus, Ralf ^a   Zähringer, Markus ^a   Goßmann, Axel ^a   Winnekendonk, Guido ^a   Lackner, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Digital imaging; Mammography; Screen film mammography; Women's imaging; X ray technology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALOG COMPUTER; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL DIRECT FLAT PANEL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIOLOGIST; TECHNIQUE; X RAY FILM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 33846553573     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.2006     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:871-898
2. Hermann K-P, Funke M, Grabbe E. Physical and technical aspects of digital mammography [in German]. Radiologe 2002; 42:256-260
3. James JJ. The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol 2004; 59:1-10
4. Pisano ED, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M. Perspective on digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol 2001; 36:195-200
5. Pisano ED, Yaffee MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234:353-362
6. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group: diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783
7. Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Aichinger U, et al. Film-screen mammography versus digital storage plate mammography: hard copy and monitor display of microcalcifications and focal findings-a retrospective clinical and histologic analysis [in German]. Röfo 2003; 175:1220-1224
8. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann K-P, Böhner C, et al. Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system [in German]. Röfo 2004; 176:1127-1132
9. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, et al. Comparing the visualization of microcalcifications with direct magnification in digital full-field mammography vs. film-screen mammography [in German]. Röfo 2002; 174:297-300
10. Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F. Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography [in German]. Röfo 2003; 175:775-779
11. Obenauer S, Hermann K-P, Schorn C, Funke M, Fischer U, Grabbe E. Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcifications [in German]. Röfo 2000; 172:646-650
12. Obenauer S, Hermann K-P, Schorn C, Fischer U, Grabbe E. Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis [in German]. Röfo 2000; 172:1052-1056
13. Schulz-Wendtland R, Aichinger U, Säbel M, Böhner C, Dobritz M, Bautz W. Experimental studies on image quality in conventional film screen system, digital phosphor storage plate mammography in magnification technique and digital mammography in CCD-technique [in German]. Röfo 2000; 172:965-968
14. Schulz-Wendtland R, Aichinger U, Lell M, Kuchar I, Bautz W. Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems [in German]. Röfo 2002; 174:1243-1246
15. Cowen AR, Launders JH, Jadav M, Brettle DS. Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mammography. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42:1533-1548
16. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Johnston DA, et al. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen-film. Med Phys 2002; 29:2052-2061
17. Yip WM, Pang SY, Yim WS, Kwok CS. ROC analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot film mammography with conventional spot film mammography. Br J Radiol 2001; 74:621-628
18. Hermann K-P, 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 [in German]. Röfo 2000; 172:940-945