Literature DB >> 16518656

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.

C Van Ongeval1, H Bosmans, A Van Steen, K Joossens, V Celis, M Van Goethem, I Verslegers, K Nijs, F Rogge, G Marchal.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine prospectively the diagnostic value of a computed radiography (CR) system by comparing mammographic hard copy images with screen-film mammography (SFM). A series of 100 patients, who came for diagnostic investigation, underwent two-view SFM (Lorad M-IV Platinum) and digital mammography with a CR system (AGFA CR system). The images were obtained by double exposure, i.e. same view without removing compression of the corresponding breast. The CR images were processed with dedicated processing for mammography. Six radiologists read sets of SFM and CR images. The primary efficacy parameter was the overall diagnostic value. The secondary efficacy parameters were lesion conspicuity and lesion details (for masses and micro-calcifications), tissue visibility at chest wall and at skin line, axillary details, overall density and sharpness impression and the overall noise impression. These parameters were scored by a 7-point scoring system. "CR non-inferior to SFM" was concluded if the lower confidence interval bound exceeded 80%. The confidence interval for the overall diagnostic value was between 96.4% and 100%. Pooled analysis of the ten features for image quality comparison demonstrated for all but one feature (lesion details of the calcifications) CR non-inferiority to SFM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16518656     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-0134-9

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay.

Authors:  E D Pisano; E B Cole; B M Hemminger; M J Yaffe; S R Aylward; A D Maidment; R E Johnston; M B Williams; L T Niklason; E F Conant; L L Fajardo; D B Kopans; M E Brown; S M Pizer
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

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

Authors:  U Fischer; F Baum; S Obenauer; S Luftner-Nagel; D von Heyden; R Vosshenrich; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  The current status of digital mammography.

Authors:  J J James
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 4.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

Authors:  A Noel; F Thibault
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-10-08       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       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 vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.

Authors:  S Obenauer; S Luftner-Nagel; D von Heyden; U Munzel; F Baum; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  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 in total
  6 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.  Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.

Authors:  Paula Toroi; Federica Zanca; Kenneth C Young; Chantal van Ongeval; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  A Comparison of the effectiveness of Mammographic Film-Screen and Standard Film-Screen in the Detection of Small Bone Fractures.

Authors:  Karim Ghazikhanlou Sani; Mahmoodreza Jafari; Nima Rostampoor
Journal:  Iran J Med Sci       Date:  2011-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.