Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 83, Issue 990, 2010, Pages 486-492

  Kim, M J ^a   Youk, J H ^a   Kang, D R ^b   Choi, S H ^a,c   Kwak, J Y ^a   Son, E J ^a   Kim, Eun Kyung ^a  

^a Research Institute of Radiological Science   (South Korea)

^b Yonsei University   (South Korea)

^c Hallym University Medical Center   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77952942146     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/16967819     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Law J. Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. Br J Radiol 2005;78:816-820 (Pubitemid 41246150)
2. Sickles E, Doi K, Genant H. Magnification film mammography: image quality and clinical studies. Radiology 1977;125:69-76. (Pubitemid 8213528)
3. Sickles E. Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications. Radiology 1980;137:9-14. (Pubitemid 10002546)
4. Sickles EA. Microfocal spot magnification mammography using xeroradiographic and screen-film recording systems. Radiology 1979;131:599-607.
5. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. [Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming]. Radiologe 2002;42:261-264
6. Kuzmiak CM, Millnamow GA, Qaqish B, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Brown ME. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. Acad Radiol 2002;9:1378-1382 (Pubitemid 36331011)
7. Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Youk JH, Choi SH, et al. Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography? Eur Radiol 2009;19:310-317
8. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th edn. Reston VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
9. Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research DoR, University of Chicago. Available from: http://wwwradiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL-ROC/ software-index.htm [Accessed July 22, 2008].
10. Wagner RF, Metz CE, Campbell G. Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol 2007;14:723-748 (Pubitemid 46898203)
11. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174 (Pubitemid 8054849)
12. 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;353:1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
13. Faulk RM, Sickles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses. Radiology 1992;185:87-90.
14. Hall FM. Magnification spot compression of the breast. Radiology 1989;173:284.
15. 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;179:671-677 (Pubitemid 34919579)
16. Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:483-500. (Pubitemid 34765035)