Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 3-14

  Skaane, P ^a  

^a ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast radiography; Cancer screening; Comparative studies; Full field digital mammography; Interobserver variation; Radiography

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; TUMORS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST RADIOGRAPHY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE STUDIES; FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; INTEROBSERVER VARIATION;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X RAY FILM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 60649083158     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850802563269     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Bick U, Diekmann F. Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know? Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1931-42.
2. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:38-44.
3. Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2559-66.
4. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N, Sahiner B, Adler DD, Paramagul C, et al. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 2001;8:454-66.
5. 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]. Rofo 2003;175:775-9.
6. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679-83.
7. Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Jiroutek MR, Muller KE, Zheng Y, et al. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:47-50.
8. Krug KB, Stutzer H, Girnus R, Zahringer M, Gossmann A, Winnekendonk G, et al. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:399-407.
9. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697-702.
10. O'Riordan E, Bukhanov K, Wilson C, Sidlofsky S, Goldberg F, Muradali D. Detection and characterization of microcalcification with film-screen and full-field digital mammographv (FFDM). Radiology 2000;217(P): 200.
11. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Sechopoulos I, D'Orsi CJ. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size. Radiology 2007;244:130-7.
12. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning P, Kim HH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004;11:879-86.
13. Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005;78:312-5.
14. Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Ciatto S, Gentile E, Lazzari B, Mantellini P, et al. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 2005;55: 258-63.
15. Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Skaane P, et al. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 2003;16:341-4.
16. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223:483-8.
17. Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzmiak CM, Koomen M, Pavic D, McLelland R, et al. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer: full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1229-35.
18. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, 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;237:37-44.
19. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, et al. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1241-8.
20. Yamada T. Saito M, Ishibashi T, Tsuboi M, Matsuhashi T, Sato A, et al. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. Radiat Med 2004;22:408-12.
21. Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006;332:678-9.
22. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001;218:873-80.
23. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:671-7.
24. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: the Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877-84.
25. Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, et al. Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and fullfield digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol 2005;46:679-89.
26. 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.
27. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-17.
28. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson ANA, Fryback DG, et al. American College of Radiology imaging network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236:404-12.
29. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
30. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-83.
31. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42:236-42.
32. Crystal P, Strano S. Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 2006;354:765-6.
33. Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Marques H, Cohen MA, et al. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology 2008;247:38-48.
34. Heddson B, Roennow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007;64:419-25.
35. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:860-6.
36. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 2008;18:183-91.
37. Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, Frantzen JO. Fullfield digital mammography screening in the populationbased screening program in North-Norway: preliminary results. Radiology 2006;241(P):392.
38. Perry NM, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Vinnicombe SJ, Shiel S, dos Santos Silva II. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with conventional screen-film mammography within a population-based breast screening program. Radiology 2007;245(P):382.
39. Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, Deurenberg J, Beekman M, Bartels-Kortland A. Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening program. Eur Radiol 2008;Suppl 1: 151-2.
40. Lewin J. Clinical trials in full-field digital mammography. Semin Breast Dis 2006;9:87-91.
41. Gur D. Technology and practice assessment: in search of a "desirable" statement. Radiology 2005;234:659-60.
42. Gur D. Digital mammography: do we need to convert now? Radiology 2007;245:10-1.
43. Keen JD. Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 2006;354:766.
44. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe M, Conant EF, Gatsonis C. Should breast imaging practices convert to digital mammography? A response from members of the DMIST executive committee. Radiology 2007;245:12-3.
45. Dershaw DD. Film or digital mammographic screening? N Engl J Med 2005;353:1846-7.
46. Skaane P, Niklason L. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a proper measurement for performance in breast cancer screening? Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 579-80.
47. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-13.
48. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1769-77.
49. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
50. Skaane P, Diekmann F, Balleyguier C, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, et al. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1134-43.
51. Glueck DH, Lamb MM, Lewin JM, Pisano ED. Twomodality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. Acad Radiol 2007;14:670-6.
52. Rothenberg BM, Ziegler KM, Aronson N. Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Synopsis: full-field digital mammography. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3:586-8.
53. Kopans DB. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology 2008;248:703-4.
54. Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, Sisney GA. The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:790-6.
55. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:38-41.
56. O'Riordan E, Bukhanov K, Muradali D, Goldberg F. A comparison of reporting times for analog vs digital mammography. Radiology 2000;217 (P):200.
57. Solari M, Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Wolfman JA, Willis W, Segal L, et al. Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182 Suppl: 11.
58. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino DA. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:377-84.
59. Pisano ED, Zuley M, Baum JK, Marques HS. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 2007;45:813-30.
60. Dershaw DD. Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 2006;12:99-102.
61. 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 Radiol 2006;57:69-75.
62. Tosteson ANA, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:1-10.
63. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wacker T, Bautz W. Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographie. Radiologe 2008;48:324-34.