Literature DB >> 17888771

Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

Etta D Pisano1, Margarita Zuley, Janet K Baum, Helga S Marques.   

Abstract

This article outlines the reasons that many radiology practices are converting to digital mammography. In addition, it provides basic information about the issues that must be considered in making the transformation. These issues include technical matters regarding image display, storage, and retrieval as well as clinical and ergonomic considerations.

Mesh：

Year:  2007        PMID： 17888771      PMCID： PMC2078259          DOI： 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN： 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  27 in total

1.  Digital mammography: comparison of adaptive and nonadaptive CAD methods for mass detection.

Authors:  W Qian; L Li; L Clarke; R A Clark; J Thomas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  An evaluation of contrast enhancement techniques for mammographic breast masses.

Authors:  Sameer Singh; Keir Bovis
Journal:  IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed       Date:  2005-03

3.  The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Donglin Zeng; Keith Muller; Stephen R Aylward; Sungwook Park; Cherie Kuzmiak; Marcia Koomen; Dag Pavic; Ruth Walsh; Jay Baker; Edgardo I Gimenez; Rita Freimanis
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute.

Authors:  F Shtern
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine A Gatsonis; Martin J Yaffe; R Edward Hendrick; Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Lawrence W Bassett; Janet K Baum; Emily F Conant; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Detection of simulated lesions on data-compressed digital mammograms.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Sandra M Waldrop; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-27       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

Authors:  Elodia Cole; Etta D Pisano; Mary Brown; Cherie Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Hak Hee Kim; Roberta Jong; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

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
View more
  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.  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

3.  Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.

Authors:  Abra M Jeffers; Weiva Sieh; Jafi A Lipson; Joseph H Rothstein; Valerie McGuire; Alice S Whittemore; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Case-control study of mammographic density and breast cancer risk using processed digital mammograms.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Jafi A Lipson; Ninah Achacoso; Joseph H Rothstein; Martin J Yaffe; Rhea Y Liang; Luana Acton; Valerie McGuire; Alice S Whittemore; Daniel L Rubin; Weiva Sieh
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Ergonomic strategies to improve radiographers' posture during mammography activities.

Authors:  Nicolai Cernean; Florentino Serranheira; Pedro Gonçalves; Cláudia Sá Dos Reis
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-06-21

6.  Overview of the radiographers' practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal.

Authors:  Cláudia Sá Dos Reis; Ana Pascoal; Lucian Radu; Mário Fartaria de Oliveira; João Alves
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-03-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.