Literature DB >> 18335192

[Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography].

R Schulz-Wendtland1, K-P Hermann, T Wacker, W Bautz.   

Abstract

Digital mammography has extensively replaced conventional film screen mammography and is now the standard in combination with soft copy reading in clinical as well as screening mammography. Large international multicenter studies demonstrate an equivalent or superior detection rate of breast cancers by digital in comparison to conventional mammography especially in dense breasts, premenopausal and perimenopausal women and women less than 50 years old. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is important for the experienced investigator (increased specificity). Digital mammography also offers further options, such as tomosynthesis, digital contrast-enhanced mammography and the combination of digital mammography and ultrasound. The future in breast diagnosis will be the fusion of images from different digital systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18335192     DOI: 10.1007/s00117-008-1639-4

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


  31 in total

1.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  [Physical and technical aspects of digital mammography].

Authors:  K P Hermann; M Funke; E Grabbe
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; E Wenkel; M Lell; C Böhner; W A Bautz; T Mertelmeier
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2006-12

Review 4.  Digital mammography: novel applications.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  [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

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.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Gilat Zisman; Kevin Mohtashemi; Guarav Jindal; Martin P Disimio; Steven K Rogers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms.

Authors:  Nico Karssemeijer; Johannes D M Otten; Andre L M Verbeek; Johanna H Groenewoud; Harry J de Koning; Jan H C L Hendriks; Roland Holland
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-02-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions.

Authors:  W P Kegelmeyer; J M Pruneda; P D Bourland; A Hillis; M W Riggs; M L Nipper
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-05       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
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems].

Authors:  F Semturs; E Sturm; R Gruber; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Histopathological image analysis: a review.

Authors:  Metin N Gurcan; Laura E Boucheron; Ali Can; Anant Madabhushi; Nasir M Rajpoot; B Yener
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-10-30

3.  Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; P Dankerl; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; D L Wachter; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger; B Brehm
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.915

4.  Evaluation of a Marker Clip System in Sonographically Guided Core Needle Biopsy for Breast Cancer Localization Before and After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; P Dankerl; M R Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M G Schrauder; M W Beckmann; M Uder; B Brehm; C R Loehberg
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.915

5.  [Perspectives of the digital mammography platform].

Authors:  R Gruber; C C Riedl; M Reisegger; K Pinker; E Sturm; F Semturs; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.