Literature DB >> 12033579

Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Eric A Berns1, R Edward Hendrick, Gary R Cutter.   

Abstract

Results of acceptance testing 18 full-field digital mammography systems for clinical use and of conducting annual physics surveys of 38 screen-film mammography systems were compared in terms of exposure times, mean glandular breast doses, and image quality. These evaluations were made using the same test tools on all systems, with emphasis on assessing automatic exposure control performance and image quality on both digital and screen-film systems using clinical techniques. Survey results indicated that digital mammography systems performed similarly to screen-film systems in terms of exposure times and mean glandular doses for thin to intermediate breasts, but that digital mammography systems selected shorter exposure times and lower mean glandular doses for thicker breasts. For all breast thicknesses, digital mammography systems yielded mean contrast-detail scores higher than those for screen-film systems. For all breast thicknesses, the 18 digital mammography systems demonstrated less variance in terms of exposure times, mean glandular doses, and contrast-detail scores than did the 38 screen-film systems tested. These results indicate that the clinical use of digital mammography may generally improve image quality for equal or lower breast doses, while providing tighter control on exposures and image quality than screen-film mammography.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12033579     DOI: 10.1118/1.1472497

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  17 in total

1.  Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.

Authors:  Xinming Liu; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William R Geiser; Youtao Shen; Ying Yi; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.

Authors:  Khaled H Al Khalifah; Ajit Brindhaban; Raed A Saeed
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2013-11-05

7.  Variations in optical coherence tomography resolution and uniformity: a multi-system performance comparison.

Authors:  Anthony Fouad; T Joshua Pfefer; Chao-Wei Chen; Wei Gong; Anant Agrawal; Peter H Tomlins; Peter D Woolliams; Rebekah A Drezek; Yu Chen
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 3.732

8.  Dose and detectability improvements with high energy phase sensitive x-ray imaging in comparison to low energy conventional imaging.

Authors:  Molly Donovan Wong; Aimin Yan; Muhammad Ghani; Yuhua Li; Laurie Fajardo; Xizeng Wu; Hong Liu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis for the detection of simulated microcalcifications on mammograms using hardcopy images.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; Gary J Whitman; Wei T Yang; Peter J Dempsey; Victoria Nguyen; Mary F Ice
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities.

Authors:  Dc Spelic; Rv Kaczmarek; M Hilohi; S Belella
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2007-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.