Literature DB >> 17429645

Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Ulrich Bick1, Felix Diekmann.   

Abstract

High-quality full-field digital mammography has been available now for several years and is increasingly used for both diagnostic and screening mammography. A number of different detector technologies exist, which all have their specific advantages and disadvantages. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography has been shown to be at least equivalent to film-screen mammography in a general screening population. Digital mammography is superior to screen-film mammography in younger women with dense breasts due to its ability to selectively optimize contrast in areas of dense parenchyma. This advantage is especially important in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, where intensified early detection programs may have to start from 25 to 30 years of age. Tailored image processing and computer-aided diagnosis hold the potential to further improve the early detection of breast cancer. However, at present no consensus exists among radiologists on which processing is optimal for digital mammograms. Image processing may also vary significantly among vendors with so far limited interoperability. This review aims to summarize the available information regarding the impact of digital mammography on workflow and breast cancer diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17429645     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0586-1

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


  61 in total

1.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential.

Authors:  James T Dobbins; Devon J Godfrey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  P Skaane; A Skjennald; K Young; E Egge; I Jebsen; E M Sager; B Scheel; E Søvik; A K Ertzaas; S Hofvind; M Abdelnoor
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images.

Authors:  J W Byng; J P Critten; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment?

Authors:  R M Maes; D J Dronkers; J H Hendriks; M A Thijssen; H W Nab
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].

Authors:  D Gosch; S Jendrass; M Scholz; T Kahn
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2006-06-07

7.  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

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

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

9.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.

Authors:  A E Burgess; F L Jacobson; P F Judy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Cosimo di Maggio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 7.034

View more
  13 in total

1.  The Future of Breast Cancer Diagnostics.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Susanne Diekmann
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  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 3.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center.

Authors:  Ramya Pham; Daniel Forsberg; Donna Plecha
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Anabel Romero; Francesc Belvis; Mar Sánchez; Joana Ferrer; Dolores Salas; Josefa Ibáñez; Alfonso Vega; Francesc Ferrer; M Soledad Laso; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

7.  Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Nicholas Perry; S Vinnicombe; S Shiel; M Weber
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI.

Authors:  Natalia Caproni; Francesca Marchisio; Annarita Pecchi; Barbara Canossi; Rachele Battista; Piero D'Alimonte; Pietro Torricelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Digital versus screen film mammography: a clinical comparison.

Authors:  Y Faridah
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2008-10-01

10.  Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates.

Authors:  Adriana M J Bluekens; Nico Karssemeijer; David Beijerinck; Jan J M Deurenberg; Ruben E van Engen; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.