Literature DB >> 15774591

Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection.

A Fischmann1, K C Siegmann, A Wersebe, C D Claussen, M Müller-Schimpfle.   

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare image quality and lesion detection for full field digital mammography (FFDM) and film-screen mammography (FSM). In 200 women we performed digital mammography of one breast and film-screen mammography of the other breast. Imaging parameters were set automatically. Image quality, visualization of calcifications and masses were rated by three readers independently. Mean glandular dose was calculated for both systems. We found no significant difference in mean glandular dose. Image quality was rated by reader A/B/C as excellent for FFDM in 153/155/167 cases and for FSM in 139/116/114 cases (p<0.03/0.001/0.001). Microcalcifications were detected by FFDM in 103/89/98 and by FSM in 76/76/76 cases (p<0.01/0.06/0.01). Detection of masses did not differ significantly. FFDM provided significantly better visibility of skin and nipple-areola region (p<0.01). FFDM demonstrated improved image quality compared with film-screen mammography. Microcalcification detection was also significantly better with the digital mammography system for two of the three readers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15774591     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/33317317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  18 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

2.  Extra patient movement during mammographic imaging: an experimental study.

Authors:  W K Ma; D Brettle; D Howard; J Kelly; S Millington; P Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: A fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Yuanjie Zheng; Brad M Keller; Shonket Ray; Yan Wang; Emily F Conant; James C Gee; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Increasing display luminance as a means to enhance interpretation accuracy and efficiency when reducing full-field digital mammography dose.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-07-27

5.  A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images.

Authors:  Hao Jing; Yongyi Yang; Miles N Wernick; Laura M Yarusso; Robert M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  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

7.  Comparison of Image Quality Criteria between Digital Storage Phosphor Plate in Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Pushpa Thevi Rajendran; Vijayalakshmi Krishnapillai; Sulaiman Tamanang; Kanaga Kumari Chelliah
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2012-01

8.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

Review 10.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.