Digital mammography

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 871-884

  Lewin, John M ^a   D'Orsi, Carl J ^b   Hendrick, R Edward ^c  

^a 938 Bannock St Suite 300 D   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; HUMAN; INFANCY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL EXAMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST;

CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 4444273024     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.004     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. S.W. Fletcher, W. Black, R. Harris, B.K. Rimer, and S. Shapiro Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 85 1993 1644 1656
2. L. Nystrom, L.E. Rutqvist, and S. Wall Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials Lancet 341 1993 973 978
3. L. Tabar, G. Fagerberg, and S.W. Duffy Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer Radiol Clin North Am 30 1992 187 210
4. S.P. Poplack, A.N. Tosteson, M.R. Grove, W.A. Wells, and P.A. Carney Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network Radiology 217 2000 832 840
5. M.N. Linver, S.B. Paster, R.D. Rosenberg, C.R. Key, C.A. Stidley, and W.V. King Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases Radiology 184 1992 39 43
6. R.D. Rosenberg, W.C. Hunt, and M.R. Williamson Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico Radiology 209 1998 511 518
7. L.H. Baker Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report CA Cancer J Clin 32 1982 194 225
8. R.E. Bird Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases Radiology 171 1989 87 90
9. F. Shtern Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute Radiology 183 1992 629 630
10. S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, H. Ved, S.P. Baker, and C.J. D'Orsi Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images Radiology 225 2002 801 807
11. V.N. Cooper III, T. Oshiro, C.H. Cagnon, L.W. Bassett, T.M. McLeod-Stockmann, and N.V. Bezrukiy Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems Med Phys 30 2003 2614 2621
12. K.P. Hermann, S. Obenauer, M. Funke, and E.H. Grabbe Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications Eur Radiol 12 2002 2188 2191
13. P.E. Undrill, A.D. O'Kane, and F.J. Gilbert A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms Clin Radiol 55 2000 782 790
14. E.A. Berns, R.E. Hendrick, and G.R. Cutter Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice Med Phys 29 2002 830 834
15. X.J. Rong, C.C. Shaw, D.A. Johnston, M.R. Lemacks, X. Liu, and G.J. Whitman Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film Med Phys 29 2002 2052 2061
16. E. Krupinski, H. Roehrig, and T. Furukawa Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search Acad Radiol 6 7 1999 411 418
17. J.M. Lewin, R.E. Hendrick, C.J. D'Orsi, P.K. Isaacs, L.J. Moss, and A. Karellas Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations Radiology 218 2001 873 880
18. J.M. Lewin, C.J. D'Orsi, R.E. Hendrick, L.J. Moss, P.K. Isaacs, and A. Karellas Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography for breast cancer detection AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 2002 671 677
19. P. Skaane, K. Young, and A. Skjennald Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study Radiology 229 2003 877 884
20. U. Fischer, F. Baum, S. Obenauer, S. Luftner-Nagel, D. von Heyden, and R. Vosshenrich Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography Eur Radiol 12 2002 2679 2683
21. S. Diekmann, U. Bick, H. von Heyden, and F. Diekmann Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 175 2003 775 779
22. L.J. Warren Burhenne, S.A. Wood, C.J. D'Orsi, S.A. Feig, D.B. Kopans, and K.F. O'Shaughnessy Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography Radiology 215 2000 554 562 [erratum in: Radiology 2000;216:306]
23. R.F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, and L.G. Naul Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 2003 687 693
24. T.W. Freer, and M.J. Ulissey Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center Radiology 220 2001 781 786
25. D. Gur, J.H. Sumkin, H.E. Rockette, M. Ganott, C. Hakim, and L. Hardesty Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system J Natl Cancer Inst 96 2004 185 190
26. R.M. Warren, and S.W. Duffy Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience Br J Radiol 68 1995 958 962
27. E. Thurfjell, K. Lernevall, and A. Taube Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program Radiology 191 1994 241 244
28. N. Karssemeijer, J.D. Otten, A.L. Verbeek, J.H. Groenewoud, H.J. de Koning, and J.H. Hendriks Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms Radiology 227 2003 192 200
29. L.T. Niklason, B.T. Christian, L.E. Niklason, D.B. Kopans, D.E. Castleberry, and B.H. Opsahl-Ong Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging Radiology 205 1997 399 406
30. S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S.J. Glick, C.J. D'Orsi, and S.P. Baker Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography Acad Radiol 7 2000 1085 1097
31. M. Lehtimaki, M. Pamilo, and L. Raulisto Diagnostic clinical benefits of digita1 spot and digital 3D mammography following analysis of screening findings SPIE Medical Imaging 5029 2003 698 706
32. R.A. Jong, M.J. Yaffe, M. Skarpathiotakis, R.S. Shumak, N.M. Danjoux, and A. Gunesekara Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience Radiology 228 2003 842 850
33. J.M. Lewin, P.K. Isaacs, V. Vance, and F.J. Larke Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility Radiology 229 2003 261 268