The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 83, Issue 986, 2010, Pages 122-128

  Goldstraw, Emma J ^a   Castellano, I ^a   Ashley, S ^a   Allen, S ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; PERFORMANCE; RECALL; STEREOTACTIC BIOPSY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULES; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOFTWARE; STATE MEDICINE; STEREOTAXIC TECHNIQUES;

EID: 76149121807     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/96554696     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. James JJ. The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1-10.
2. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:860-6.
3. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877-84.
4. 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;132:197-204.
5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, 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;353:1773-83.
6. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:671-7.
7. Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, editor. IWDM 2000: 5th International workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, WI: Medical Physics, 2001;475-81.
8. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning MP, 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.
9. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234:353-62.
10. 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 characterisation of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1697-702.
11. Kim SJ, Moon WK, Cho N, Cha JH, Kim SM, Im JG. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations. Radiology 2008;246:71-80.
12. Khoo LA, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 2005;237:444-9.
13. Nishikawa RM. Computer-aided diagnosis complements full-field digital mammography. Diagn Imaging (San Franc) 1999;21:47-51.
14. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006;16:38-44.
15. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2188-91.
16. Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group. Guidelines for reporting breast imaging. Available from: http://www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/radiology/pdf/ BreastSSC.pdf [Accessed 2 June 2009].
17. Scott HJ, Gale AG. Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs. Br J Radiol. 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No2:SI27-33.
18. Muller S, Lordache R, Levy L. Glandular tissue enhancement: improved display of digital mammography images. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(Suppl 1):149. ECR, Vienna, 7-11 March 2003.
19. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Mercado C, Koenigsberg T, Brown M. A novel post-processing algorithm for digital mammography: effect on conspicuity, sensitivity, speed and confidence. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182(4)(Suppl):11.
20. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D, Muller K, Aylward SR, Park S, et al. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 2005;12:585-95.
21. Department of Health. The Cancer Reform Strategy. December 2007. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/publications [Accessed 2 June 2009].