Literature DB >> 19037825

Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review.

P Skaane1.   

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has several potential benefits as compared with screen-film mammography (SFM) in mammography screening. Digital technology also opens for implementation of advanced applications, including computer-aided detection (CAD) and tomosynthesis. Phantom studies and experimental clinical studies have shown that FFDM is equal or slightly superior to SFM for detection and characterization of mammographic abnormalities. Despite obvious advantages, the conversion to digital mammography has been slower than anticipated, and not only due to higher costs. Until very recently, some countries did not even permit the use of digital mammography in breast cancer screening. The reason for this reluctant attitude was concern about lower spatial resolution and about using soft-copy reading. Furthermore, there was a lack of data supporting improved diagnostic accuracy using FFDM in a screening setting, since two pioneer trials both showed nonsignificantly lower cancer detection rate at FFDM. The 10 studies comparing FFDM and SFM in mammography screening published so far have shown divergent and rather conflicting results. Nevertheless, there is a rapid conversion to digital mammography in breast cancer screening in many western countries. The aim of this article is to give an updated review of these studies, discuss the conflicting findings, and draw some conclusions from the results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19037825     DOI: 10.1080/02841850802563269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  34 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.  [First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; E Wenkel; B Adamietz; M Lell; K Anders; M Uder
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  [Comparison of dignity determination of mammographic microcalcification with two systems for digital full-field mammography with different detector resolution: a retrospective clinical study].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; B Adamietz; M Meier-Meitinger; E Wenkel; M Lell; K Anders; M Uder
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate.

Authors:  Cinzia Campari; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Carlo Alberto Mori; Sara Ravaioli; Andrea Nitrosi; Rita Vacondio; Pamela Mancuso; Antonella Cattani; Pierpaolo Pattacini
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Joann G Elmore; Sofie Sebuødegård; Solveig Roth Hoff; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 8.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 9.  Salivary biomarkers in cancer detection.

Authors:  Xiaoqian Wang; Karolina Elżbieta Kaczor-Urbanowicz; David T W Wong
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 3.064

10.  Quantitative visually lossless compression ratio determination of JPEG2000 in digitized mammograms.

Authors:  Verislav T Georgiev; Anna N Karahaliou; Spyros G Skiadopoulos; Nikos S Arikidis; Alexandra D Kazantzi; George S Panayiotakis; Lena I Costaridou
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.