BACKGROUND: Two digital mammography systems, based on different physical concepts, have been introduced in the last few years namely the full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plate (DSPM). AIMS: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality for DSPM and FFDM using a grading scale based on previously published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative diagnostic study was done for 5-month duration at the Breast Clinic. The system used was the Lorad Selenia FFDM system and the Mammomat 3000 Nova DSPM system. The craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections were done on both breast on 58 asymptomatic women using both DSPM and FFDM. The mammograms were evaluated for eight criteria of image quality: Tissue coverage, compression, exposure, contrast, resolution, noise, artifact, and sharpness by two independent radiologists. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and Weighted Kappa. RESULTS: FFDM was rated significantly better (P < 0.05) for five aspects: Tissue coverage, compression, contrast, exposure, and resolution and equal to DSPM for sharpness, noise, and artifact. CONCLUSION: FFDM was superior in five aspects and equal to DSPM for three aspects of image quality.
BACKGROUND: Two digital mammography systems, based on different physical concepts, have been introduced in the last few years namely the full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plate (DSPM). AIMS: The objective of this study was to compare the image quality for DSPM and FFDM using a grading scale based on previously published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative diagnostic study was done for 5-month duration at the Breast Clinic. The system used was the Lorad Selenia FFDM system and the Mammomat 3000 Nova DSPM system. The craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections were done on both breast on 58 asymptomatic women using both DSPM and FFDM. The mammograms were evaluated for eight criteria of image quality: Tissue coverage, compression, exposure, contrast, resolution, noise, artifact, and sharpness by two independent radiologists. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and Weighted Kappa. RESULTS: FFDM was rated significantly better (P < 0.05) for five aspects: Tissue coverage, compression, contrast, exposure, and resolution and equal to DSPM for sharpness, noise, and artifact. CONCLUSION: FFDM was superior in five aspects and equal to DSPM for three aspects of image quality.