Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 267-272

  Schueller, Gerd ^a   Kaindl, Elisabeth ^a   Langenberger, Herbert ^a   Stadler, Alfred ^a   Schueller Weidekamm, Claudia ^a   Semturs, Friedrich ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Dry laser printer; Evidence based medicine; Full field digital mammography; Image quality; Wet laser printer

Indexed keywords

DENSITY (OPTICAL); IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRINTERS (COMPUTER); TISSUE;

DRY LASER PRINTERS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; WET LASER PRINTERS;

IMAGE QUALITY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BRIGHTNESS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPTICAL DENSITY; PRINTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTIFACTS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LASERS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRINTING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34147159036     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.11.038     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Boyle P., Leon M.E., Maisonneuve P., et al. Cancer control in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 83 Suppl. 1 (2003) 179-202 [Update 2003]
2. Emens L.A., and Davidson N.E. The follow-up of breast cancer. Semin Oncol 30 (2003) 338-348
3. Brewster A., and Helzlsouer K. Breast cancer epidemiology, prevention, and early detection. Curr Opin Oncol 13 (2001) 420-425
4. Irwig L., Houssami N., and Van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 90 (2004) 2118-2122
5. Tabar L., and Dean P.B. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 82 (2003) 319-326
6. Fletcher S.W., and Elmore J.G. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348 (2003) 1672-1680
7. Hendrick R.E., Lewin J.M., D'Orsi C.J., et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe M.J. (Ed). IWDM 2000: 5th international workshop on digital mammography (2001), Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI 475-481
8. Cole E.B., Pisano E.D., Hanna L.G., et al. Multicenter clinical assessment of the Fisher SenoScan digital mammography system. Radiology 221 Suppl. (2001) 285
9. Lewin J.M., D'Orsi C.J., Hendrick R.E., et al. Clinical Comparison of full field digital mammography and film-screen mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 671-677
10. Lewin J.M., Hendrick R.E., D'Orsi C.J., et al. Comparison of full field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218 (2001) 873-880
11. Cole E.B., Pisano E.D., Kistner E.O., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts presenting for problem-solving mammography-image procession and lesion type effects. Radiology 226 (2003) 153-160
12. Venta L.A., Hendrick R.E., Adler Y.T., 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 (2001) 1241-1248
13. Shah A.J., Wang J., Yamada T., et al. Digital mammography: a review of technical development and clinical applications. Clin Breast Cancer 4 (2003) 63-70
14. Pisano E.D., Cole E.B., Hemminger B.M., et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20 (2000) 1479-1491
15. Astley S.M., and Gilbert F.J. Computer-aided detection in mammography. Clin Radiol 59 (2004) 390-399
16. Schueller G., Kaindl E., Matzek W.K., Semturs F., Schueller-Weidekamm C., and Helbich T.H. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) 38-43
17. Smith R. Strategies in the transition to digital imagers. Imaging Econ 5 Suppl. (2001) 8-11
18. Fisk H.C. Politics of printing: the medical imaging industry isn't PACS-ing printers away. Med Imaging 19 (2004) 31-33
19. Hunink M.G., and Krestin G.P. Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology. Radiology 222 (2002) 604-614
20. Kopans D.B. Breast sonographic screening is not ready for prime time. AJR 181 (2003) 1426-1427
21. GE Medical Systems Europe. Service manual of senographe 2000D review work station, 2243427-100; 2001.
22. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline no. 13 (1994), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD p. 65 (publication no. 95-0632)
23. American College of Radiology (ACR), Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography quality control. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1999. p. 68-70, 142, 185-96, 208-9, 287-94.
24. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. (2004), American College of Radiology, Reston VA
25. Davies M., and Fleiss J.L. Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics 38 (1982) 1047-1051
26. Hall F. Wet versus dry laser printers for copying digital mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) E22
27. Wiley G. Printing in the soft copy era. Imaging Econ 12 (2002) 31-33
28. Weberling R. DryView laser imager: a new and economical image recording process. Aktuelle Radiol 6 (1996) 355-360
29. Gahleitner A., Kreuzer S., Schick S., and Nowotny R. Dry versus conventional laser imagers: film properties and image quality. Radiology 210 (1999) 871-875
30. Berg W.A., D'Orsi C.J., Jackson V.P., 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 224 (2002) 871-880