Quo vadis? Trends in digital mammography;Quo vadis? Trends in der digitalen Mammografie1

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 108-117

  Schulz Wendtland, R ^a   Wenkel, E ^a   Wacker, T ^b   Hermann, K P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Breast; Computer aided detection; Contrast enhanced mammography; Digital mammography; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CLIMACTERIUM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREMENOPAUSE; REVIEW;

EID: 77149175694     PISSN: 00165751     EISSN: 14388804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1185324     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Lewin JM, D?Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-filmmammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR 2002; 179: 671-677
2. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Lell M et al. Phantomstudie zur Detektion simulierter Läsionen an fünf verschiedenen digitalen und einem konventionellen Mammographiesystem. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2004; 176: 1127-1132 (Pubitemid 39118854)
3. 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
4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2006; 353: 1773-1783
5. Schulz-Wendtland R, Becker N, Bock K et al. Mammographie-Screening. Radiologe 2007; 47: 359-369
6. Addendum on Digital Mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, European Protocol for the Quality Control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening, Version 1.0, European Commission, November 2003
7. PAS 1054: Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie- Einrichtungen, Normenausschuss Radiologie, März 2005
8. Anlage 9.2 BMV-Ä/EKV: Versorgung im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening, Deutsches Ärzteblatt Nr. 18 vom 6. Mai 2005 [S. A1309]
9. Hermann KP, Funke M, Grabbe E. Physikalisch-technische Aspekte der digitalen Mammographie. Radiologe 2002; 42: 256-260
10. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Bautz W. Digitale Mammographie: Klinische Ergebnisse. Radiologe 2005; 45: 255-263
11. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 38-44
12. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Marten K et al. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - clinical results. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2002; 174: 696-699
13. Gosch D, Jendraß S, Scholz M et al. Strahlenexposition bei der digitalen Vollfeldmammographie mit einem Selen-Flachdetektor. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2006; 178: 693-697
14. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP,Wenkel E et al. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Dosisreduktion durch Optimierung der Strahlenqualität bei digitaler Vollfeldmammographie mit einem Detektor auf Selenbasis. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2007; 179: 487-491
15. Weigel S, Girnus R, Czywoydzinski J et al. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2007; 179: 892-895
16. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S et al. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and fullfield digital screening mammograms. AJR 2007; 188: 377-384
17. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population- based screening programm: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708-717
18. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E et al. Vergleich der klinischenWertigkeit von Zielaufnahmen mit reduzierter Pixelgröße des Detektors und digitalem Monitorzooming bei der Beurteilung von Mikrokalzifikationen in der digitalen Mammographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2007; 179: 492-496
19. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF et al. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219: 192-202
20. Freer TW, Ullssey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12.860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220: 781-786
21. FunovicsM, Schamp S, Helbich TH et al. Evaluation eines computerassistierten Diagnosesystems in der Erkennung des Mammakarzinoms. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2001; 173: 218-223
22. Malich A, Marx C, Facius M et al. Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system. EJR 2001; 11: 2454-2459
23. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection: prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006; 239: 375-383
24. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR 2006; 187: 20-28
25. Ko JM, Nickolas MJ, Mendel JB. Prospective assessment of computeraided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR 2006; 187: 1483-1491
26. Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G et al. Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance and histopathology. Cancer 2005; 104: 931-935 (Pubitemid 41170219)
27. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA. Impact of breast density on computer- aided detection for breast cancer. AJR 2005; 184: 439-444
28. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses in mammograms. Radiology 2003; 227: 192-200
29. Karssemeijer N. Computer-aided detection and interpretation in mammography. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. Digital Mammography IWDM 2000. Wisconsin: Medical Physics Publishing; 2000: 243-252
30. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA et al. Potential of computer-aided diagnose to reduce variability in radiologists? interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology 2001; 227: 192-200
31. Bick U. Computerassistierte Diagnose in der Screeningmammographie. Radiologe 1996; 36: 72-80
32. Kegelmeyer WP, Prudeda JM, Bourland PD et al. Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. Radiology 1994; 191: 331-337
33. Elter M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wittenberg T. The prediction of breast cancer biopsy outcomes using two CAD approaches that both emphasize an intelligible decision process. Med Phys 2007; 23: 4164-4172
34. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399-406
35. Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Lell M et al. Experimental phantom lesions detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2006; 178: 1219-1223
36. Schulz-Wendtland R,Wenkel E, LellM. Digital mammographic tomosynthesis system - first clinical results. EJR 2007; 17: 250-251
37. Diekmann F, Bick U. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. EJR 2007; 17: 3086-3092
38. Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Wacker T et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography versus MR imaging: Initial clinical experience. EJR 2006; 16: 209
39. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiologic Clinics of North America 2007; 5: 831-843
40. Lawaczeck R, Diekmann F, Diekmann S. New contrast media designed for x-ray energy subtraction imaging in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 602-608
41. Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR et al. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2008; 246: 725-733
42. Schulz-Wendtland R. Mammakarzinom 2008 - State of the Art, Trends, Kontroversen: Aus der Sicht des Diagnostikers. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2008; 68: 708-716