Literature DB >> 12386757

Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.

U Fischer1, F Baum, S Obenauer, S Luftner-Nagel, D von Heyden, R Vosshenrich, E Grabbe.   

Abstract

The goal of this prospective study was to compare a full-field digital mammography system (FFDM) to a conventional screen-film mammography system (SFM) for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Fifty-five patients with 57 isolated microcalcification clusters were examined using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.) and a SFM system (Senographe DMR, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.). A conventional screen-film mammogram and a digital contact mammogram were obtained of each cluster. The image quality and the number of calcification particles were evaluated, and a characterization (BI-RADS 1-5) of microcalcifications was given by four experienced readers. Histopathology revealed 16 benign lesions (sclerosing adenosis, dysplasia, hamartoma, radial scar) in 15 patients and 21 malignant tumors (in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma) in 20 patients. Twenty patients had benign changes verified by long-term follow-up. Image quality of FFDM was assessed as superior to SFM in more than 50% of the cases. The FFDM showed more calcifications in 41% of all cases. Sensitivity and specificity for FFDM vs SFM were 95.2 vs 91.9% and 41.4 vs 39.3%, respectively. Moreover, FFDM demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy (deviation: 0.86 BI-RADS steps) compared with FSM (deviation 0.93 BI-RADS steps). The FFDM system with a 100- micro m pixel size provides better image quality than SFM in patients with mammographic microcalcifications. The FFDM has a higher sensitivity and a higher reliability in characterizing microcalcifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12386757     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1354-x

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


  35 in total

1.  Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens.

Authors:  C M Pagliari; T Hoang; M Reddy; L S Wilkinson; J D Poloniecki; R M Given-Wilson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  [Clinical results of digital mammography].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; W Bautz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  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

4.  Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Hans Roehrig; William Dallas; Jiahua Fan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.

Authors:  Hye Seong Kim; Boo Kyung Han; Ki Seok Choo; Yong Hwan Jeon; Jung Han Kim; Yeon Hyeon Choe
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2005 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  C Van Ongeval; H Bosmans; A Van Steen; K Joossens; V Celis; M Van Goethem; I Verslegers; K Nijs; F Rogge; G Marchal
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  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

8.  Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Felix Diekmann; Corinne Balleyguier; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Michael Abdelnoor; Loren Niklason
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Incorporating new imaging models in breast cancer management.

Authors:  Denise H Reddy; Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2005-03

10.  Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?

Authors:  Sandra B Brennan; Donna D'Alessio; Laura Liberman; Dilip Giri; Edi Brogi; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.