Literature DB >> 12195468

Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.

K-P Hermann1, S Obenauer, M Funke, E H Grabbe.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was a comparison of a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and a conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) system with respect to the detectability of simulated small masses and microcalcifications in the magnification mode. All images were obtained using 1.8 times magnification. The FFDM images were obtained at radiation dose levels of 1.39, 1.0, 0.7, 0.49 and 0.24 times that of the SFM images. A contrast-detail phantom was used to compare the detection of simulated lesions using a four alternative forced-choice reader study with three readers. The correct observation ratio (COR) was calculated as the fraction of correctly identified lesions to the total number of simulated lesions. Soft-copy reading was performed for all digital images. Direct magnification images acquired with the digital system showed a lower object contrast threshold than those acquired with the conventional system. For equal radiation dose, the digital system provided a significantly increased COR (0.95) compared with the screen-film system (0.82). For simulated microcalcifications, the corresponding difference was 0.90 to 0.72. The digital system allowed equal detection to screen-film at 40% of the radiation dose used for screen film. Digital magnification images are superior to screen-film magnification images for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications even at a lower radiation dose.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12195468     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1356-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  13 in total

Review 1.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

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

3.  Analysis of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for patients with segmental calcifications.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Suzuki; Akihiko Shiraishi; Atsushi Arakawa
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-25       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting.

Authors:  E J Goldstraw; I Castellano; S Ashley; S Allen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  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

6.  Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.

Authors:  Takeshi Kamitani; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Hiroyasu Soeda; Yoshio Matsuo; Takashi Okafuji; Shuji Sakai; Akio Furuya; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Nobuhide Ishii; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Lore Timmermans; Luc Bleyen; Klaus Bacher; Koen Van Herck; Kim Lemmens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Isabel De Brabander; Mathieu Goossens; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Paola Baldelli; Angelo Taibi; Cosimo Di Maggio; Mauro Gambaccini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the present).

Authors:  Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Deukwoo Kwon; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 10.  Comparison of navigation techniques for large digital images.

Authors:  Bradley M Hemminger; Anne Bauers; Jian Yang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.