Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography

European Radiology

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 2891-2898

  Bosmans, Hilde ^a   De Hauwere, An ^b   Lemmens, Kim ^a   Zanca, Federica ^a   Thierens, Hubert ^b   Van Ongeval, Chantal ^a   Van Herck, Koen ^b   Van Steen, Andre ^a   Martens, Patrick ^c   Bleyen, Luc ^b   Vande Putte, Gretel ^d   Kellen, Eliane ^d   Mortier, Griet ^b   Van Limbergen, Erik ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c Vroegtijdige Opsporing van Borstklierkanker vzw (VOB)   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Computed radiography; Contrast threshold values; Digital mammography; Performance indicators

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL INDICATOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGED; BELGIUM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREVALENCE; PROGNOSIS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84884735184     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2876-0     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. The official journal of the European Union, 'Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on Cancer Screening' (2003/878/EC), L327/34 - L327/38, Dec 16, 2003
2. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) European Guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg
3. Bick U, Diekmann F (2009) Digital mammography. Springer Verlag, Berlin
4. IAEA Human Health Series, No 17. Quality assurance programme for digital mammography. Downloadable from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html
5. Marshall NW, Monnin P, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2011) Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems'. Phys Med Biol 56:4201-4220
6. Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R et al (2006) Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. Med Phys 33:4198-4209
7. Warren LM, Mackenzie A, Cooke J et al (2012) Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. Med Phys 39:3202-3213
8. Monnin P, Marshall NW, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR (2011) Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis. Phys Med Biol 56:4221-4238
9. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. N Engl J Med 353:1773-1783
10. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study'. Radiology 244:708-717
11. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-observer performance study. Radiology 237:37-44
12. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873-880
13. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program'. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010-1018
14. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067-2073
15. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707-714
16. Sala M, Comas M, Macià F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31-39
17. Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G et al (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 20:2307-2314
18. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347-358
19. Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program. Acta Radiol 51:491-497
20. Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3-14
21. Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N et al (2009) Type testing of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 70:539-548
22. Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225-3240
23. Michielsen K, Jacobs J, Bosmans H (2007) Patient dosimetry for mammography. AIP Conference Proceedings of the Fourth International Summer School on Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators in Biology and Medicine 958:292-293
24. Chevalier M, Morán P, Ten JI, Fernández Soto JM, Cepeda T, Vañó E (2004) Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 31:2471-2479
25. Young KC, Cook JJH, Okudo JM, Bosmans H (2006) Comparison of software and human observers in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. Proc SPIE 6142, 614206-1 - 614206-13
26. Bennett RL, Blanks RG, Moss SM (2009) Evaluation of extension of breast screening to women aged 65-70 in England using screening performance measures. Br J Cancer 100:1043-1047
27. Marshall NW, Lemmens K, Bosmans H (2012) Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. Med Phys 39:811-824
28. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98-105