Literature DB >> 18305919

[Workflow in digital screening mammography].

U Bick1, F Diekmann, E M Fallenberg.   

Abstract

The overriding goal of an organized mammography screening program is to offer high level medical care to everyone at a justifiable cost. The following overview will demonstrate how both aspects of screening, quality and cost efficiency, are supported by a fully digital workflow. Digital mammography systems allow for a constant high image quality and repeat examinations due to overexposure or underexposure can be avoided. Dedicated mammography screening workstations with integration of image viewing and reporting enable efficient softcopy reading. Many aspects of the screening workflow, such as double reading, archiving and retrieval of stored films, as well as information exchange between members of the certified team of the screening unit and other physicians involved in the further treatment, are made significantly easier by the presence of image data in digital form.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18305919     DOI: 10.1007/s00117-008-1633-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiologe        ISSN: 0033-832X            Impact factor:   0.635


  27 in total

Review 1.  [Full-field digital mammography].

Authors:  U Bick
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2000-12

2.  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 3.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Joachim Böttcher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  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

5.  Radiology review of the UKCCCR Breast Screening Frequency Trial: potential improvements in sensitivity and lead time of radiological signs.

Authors:  R M L Warren; J R Young; L McLean; K Lyons; A R M Wilson; A Evans; S W Duffy; I M Warsi
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program.

Authors:  Tommy E Cupples; Joan E Cunningham; James C Reynolds
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.959

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.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.

Authors:  Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Ciatto; Rita Bonardi; Francesca Martinelli; Barbara Lazzari; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jan H C L Hendriks; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  1 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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.