First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: Digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium;Erste Untersuchungen zur Detektion simulierter mammographischer Läsionen: Digitale Vollfeldmammographie mit einem Doppelschicht-Selen- Detektor

Radiologe

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 130-134

  Schulz Wendtland, R ^a   Hermann, K P ^b   Wenkel, E ^a   Adamietz, B ^a   Lell, M ^a   Anders, K ^a   Uder, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Detection rate; Digital; Experimental studies; Mammography; Phantom study

Indexed keywords

SELENIUM;

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PILOT STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSDUCER;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PILOT PROJECTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELENIUM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSDUCERS;

EID: 79954603130     PISSN: 0033832X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00117-010-2077-7     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3-14
2. Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Wacker T, Hermann KP (2009) Quo vadis? Trends in der digitalen Mammografie. Gebfra 69:108-117
3. Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjäger M, Wacker T, Hermann KP (2009) Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol, online
4. Irisawa K, Yamane K, Imai S et al (2009) Direct-conversion 50 ìm pixel-pitch detector for digital mammography using amorphous selenium as a photoconductive switching layer for signal charge readout. Proc SPIE 7258:1-10
5. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Lell M et al (2004) Phantomstudie zur Detektion simulierter Läsionen an fünf verschiedenen digitalen und einem konventionellen Mammographiesystem. Fortschr Röntgenstr 176:1127-1132 (Pubitemid 39118854)
6. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E et al (2007) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Dosisreduktion durch Optimierung der Strahlenqualität bei digitaler Vollfeldmammographie mit einem Detektor auf Selenbasis. Fortschr Röntgenstr 179:487-491 (Pubitemid 46769650)
7. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR 179:671-677 (Pubitemid 34919579)
8. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) 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 232:197-204 (Pubitemid 38787838)
9. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
10. Blendl C, Hermann KP, Mertelmeier T (2005) PAS 1054: Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie-Einrichtungen. Beuth, Berlin
11. Van Engen R, van Woudenberg S, Bosmans H et al (2006) European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening, In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edn. European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 157-166