Image Quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: Full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 487-496

  Schueller, Gerd ^a   Riedl, Christopher C ^a   Mallek, Reinhold ^a   Eibenberger, Klemens ^a   Langenberger, Herbert ^a   Kaindl, Elisabeth ^a   Kulinna Cosentini, Christiane ^a   Rudas, Margaretha ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Breast; Comparative study; Digital mammography; Image quality; Mammography

Indexed keywords

BIOMINERALIZATION; BISMUTH PLATING; BONE; CALCIFICATION (BIOCHEMISTRY); DIGITAL ARITHMETIC; DIGITAL IMAGE STORAGE; DIGITAL STORAGE; HEALTH; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; LIGHT EMISSION; LUMINESCENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PHOSPHORS; PHOTORESISTS; PLATES (STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS); RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY;

ANATOMIC STRUCTURES; BI-RADS; BREAST; BREAST IMAGING; BREAST LESIONS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; GLANDULAR TISSUES; IMAGE QUALITY PARAMETERS; LESION DETECTION; PROSPECTI VE STUDY; STORAGE PHOSPHORS;

DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY;

PHOSPHORUS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BREAST CANCER; BREAST LESION; BREAST TUMOR; BRIGHTNESS; CALCIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMARY GLAND; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 49049110250     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Pisano E.D., Yaffe M.J., Hemminger B.M., et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7 (2000) 266-280
2. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (2005) 1773-1783
3. Harris CH. Digital mammography hits the tipping point [Health Imaging & IT Web site]. April 1, 2006. Available at: http://www.healthimaging.com/content/view/4089/68/. Accessed on April 1, 2006.
4. Bick U. Full-field digital mammography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 12 (2000) 957-964
5. Fischer C. CR digital mammography: an affordable entry [American Healthcare Radiology Administartors Web site]. September 1, 2006. Available at: http://www.ahraonline.org/ConfEd/Education/2006SeptemberOctober1/2006SeptemberOctober1.pdf. Accessed on September 1, 2006.
6. Schulz-Wendtl R., Wenkel E., Schmid A., et al. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film System (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-se detector. Fortschr Röngenstr 175 (2003) 766-768
7. Noel A., and Thibault F. Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14 (2004) 1990-1998
8. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 24 (2004) 1747-1760
9. Pisano E.D., and Yaffe M.J. Digital mammography. Radiology 234 (2005) 353-362
10. Kheddache S., Thilander-Klang A., Lanhede B., et al. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques. Eur Radiol 9 (1999) 591-597
11. Fischer U., Baum F., Obenauer S., et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs. screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 2679-2683
12. Harvey D. CR mammography. Radiol Today 6 (2006) 12
13. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline no. 13. AHCPR publication 95-0632 Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, 1994.
14. Lewin J.M., Hendrick R.E., Dórsi C.J., et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 218 (2001) 873-880
15. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4th ed., American College of Radiology, Reston VA, 2004.
16. Wallis M., Tarvidon A., Helbich T., et al. Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol 17 (2007) 581-588
17. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C.A., Yaffe M.J., et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236 (2005) 404-412
18. Hendrick R.E., Bassett L.W., Dodd G.D., et al. Mammography quality control: radiologist's manual, radiologic technologist's manual, medical physicist's manual (1999), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
19. American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography. Mammography Quality Control. Reston, VA, 1999: American College of Radiology 1999; 68-70,142,185-196,208,209,287-294.
20. Uffmann M., Prokop M., Kupper W., et al. Soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: effect of ambient light and automatic optimization of monitor luminance. Invest Radiol 40 (2005) 180-185
21. Davies M., and Fleiss J.L. Measuring agreement for multinominal data. Biometrics 38 (1982) 1047-1051
22. Schulz-Wendtland R., Hermann K.P., Lell M., et al. Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system. Fortschr Röntgenstr 176 (2004) 1127-1132
23. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., and Newhouse J.H. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225 (2002) 165-175
24. Feig S.A., and Yaffe M.J. Digital mammography. Radiographics 18 (1998) 893-901
25. Cole E.B., Pisano E.D., Kistner E.O., 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 226 (2003) 153-160
26. Kopans D.B. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 719-724
27. Brown J., Bryan S., and Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 312 (1996) 809-812
28. Nawano S., Murakami K., Moriyama N., et al. Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography. Invest Radiol 34 (1999) 310-316
29. Fischer U., Hermann K.P., and Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 38-44
30. Fischmann A., Siegmann K.C., Wersebe A., et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78 (2005) 312-315
31. (EUREF) European Protocol for the Quality Control of the Physical and Technical Aspects of Mammography Screening. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, 1999.
32. Obenauer S., Luftner-Nagel S., von Heyden D., et al. Screen film vs. full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 1697-1702
33. 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
34. Pisano E.D., Cole E.B., Major S., et al., The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 3 (2000) 820-830
35. Funke M., Obenauer S., Hermann K.P., et al. Soft copy versus hard copy findings in digital mammography. Radiologe 4 (2002) 265-269
36. Schueller G., Kaindl E., Langenberger H., et al. Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?. Eur J Radiol 62 (2007) 267-272