Pilot study on the detection of simulated lesions using a 2D and 3D digital full-field mammography system with a newly developed high resolution detector based on two shifts of a-Se

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 408-411

  Schulz Wendtland, R ^a   Bani, M ^a   Lux, M P ^a   Schwab, S ^a   Loehberg, C R ^a   Jud, S M ^a   Rauh, C ^a   Bayer, C M ^a   Beckmann, M W ^a   Uder, M ^a   Fasching, P A ^a   Adamietz, B ^a   Meier Meitinger, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

breast; breast tumor; mammographic density

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM OXIDE;

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST TUMOR; DIGITAL IMAGING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DEVICE; NYLON FIBER; PHANTOM; PILOT STUDY;

EID: 84861611222     PISSN: 00165751     EISSN: 14388804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1298158     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 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
2. Diekmann F, Bick U. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol: 2007; 17 3086 3092 (Pubitemid 350142333)
3. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol: 2009; 50 3 14
4. Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjäger M, Wacker T et al. Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol: 2009; 72 258 265
5. Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Hacker A, Sedlacek S. Contrast-enhanced MRI for early detection and staging of breast cancer: do we need it? Geburtsh Frauenheilk: 2010; 70 184 193
6. Ruckhäberle E, Rody A, Kaufmann M. Report of the 32nd Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 10-13, 2009. An international scientific symposium for interaction and exchange among basic scientists and clinicians in breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk: 2010; 70 177 183
7. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR: 2007; 189 616 623 (Pubitemid 47328544)
8. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol: 2008; 18 2817 2825
9. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR: 2008; 190 865 869 (Pubitemid 351571506)
10. Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L. Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. LNCS: 2008; 5116 61 66
11. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR: 2009; 193 586 591
12. Kontos D, Bakic PR, Carton AK et al. Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study. Acad Radiol: 2009; 16 283 298
13. Fömvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljunberg O et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiologica: 2010; 51 240 247
14. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol: 2010; 20 16 24
15. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E et al. First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: Digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium. Radiologe: 2011; 51 130 134
16. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Adamietz B et al. Comparison of dignity determination of mammographic microcalcification with two systems for digital full-field mammography with different detector resolution: A retrospective clinical study (n = 50). Radiologe: 2011; 51 126 129
17. 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)
18. Blendl C, Hermann KP, Mertelmeier T. PAS 1054: Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie-Einrichtungen. Berlin Beuth Verlag: 2005
19. van Engen R, van Woudenberg S, Bosmans H et al. 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 ed. Luxembourg European Communities: 2006; 157 166
20. Carton AK, Bakic P, Ullberg C et al. Development of a physical 3D anthropomorphic breast phantom. Med Phys: 2011; 38 891 896
21. Engelken FJ, Sack I, Klatt D et al. Evaluation of tomosynthesis elastography in a breast-mimicking phantom. Eur J Radiol: 2011; Jul 1 [epub ahead of print]
22. Webb LJ, Samei E, Lo JY et al. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection. Med Phys: 2011; 38 1972 1980