Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Literature DB >> 16132935

Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Abstract

The introduction of digital technique in mammography has been the last step in completing the process of digitalization in diagnostic imaging. Meanwhile, some different digital techniques as well as a couple of different digital mammography systems were developed and have already been available for some years. In this review article, the relevant data of key studies are reported, the current status is defined, and perspectives of digital mammography are described.

Mesh：

Year: 2005 PMID： 16132935 DOI： 10.1007/s00330-005-2848-0

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

36 in total

Review 1. Current status of full-field digital mammography.

Authors: E D Pisano; M J Yaffe; B M Hemminger; R E Hendrick; L T Niklason; A D Maidment; C M Kimme-Smith; S A Feig; E A Sickles; M P Braeuning
Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 3.173

2. [Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcification].

Authors: S Obenauer; K P Hermann; C Schorn; M Funke; U Fischer; E Grabbe
Journal: Rofo Date: 2000-07

3. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.

Authors: S Kheddache; A Thilander-Klang; B Lanhede; L G Månsson; N Bjurstam; P Ackerholm; L Björneld
Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 1999 Impact factor: 5.315

4. Computer-aided detection in direct digital full-field mammography: initial results.

Authors: F Baum; U Fischer; S Obenauer; E Grabbe
Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315

5. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens.

Authors: Cherie M Kuzmiak; Gregory A Millnamow; Bahjat Qaqish; Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Marylee E Brown
Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.173

6. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview.

Authors: Mahadevappa Mahesh
Journal: Radiographics Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333

7. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.

Authors: Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes
Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-07-24 Impact factor: 11.105

8. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

Authors: Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Marylee E Brown; Stephen A Feig; Roberta A Jong; Andrew D A Maidment; Melinda J Staiger; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Rita I Freimanis; Nadine Lesko; Eric L Rosen; Ruth Walsh; Margaret Williford; M Patricia Braeuning
Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105

9. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors: Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 11.105

10. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors: John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.959

14 in total

1. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.

Authors: Nicole T Ranger; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.071

2. Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography.

Authors: Felix Diekmann; Ulrich Bick
Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 5.315

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. [Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography].

Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; T Wacker; W Bautz
Journal: Radiologe Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 0.635

5. 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

Review 6. How Can New Imaging Modalities Help in the Practice of Radiology?

Authors: Berhan Pirimoglu; Recep Sade; Hayri Ogul; Mecit Kantarci; Suat Eren; Akın Levent
Journal: Eurasian J Med Date: 2016-10

7. Statistical Hypothesis Testing for Postreconstructed and Postregistered Medical Images.

Authors: Eugene Demidenko
Journal: SIAM J Imaging Sci Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 2.867

8. Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors: Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens
Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9. Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening.

Authors: Nermin Köşüş; Aydın Köşüş; Müzeyyen Duran; Serap Simavlı; Nilgün Turhan
Journal: J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc Date: 2010-09-01

10. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.

Authors: Einar Vigeland; Herman Klaasen; Tor Audun Klingen; Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane
Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315