Image Quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: Full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates

Schueller, Gerd; Riedl, Christopher C.; Mallek, R.; Eibenberger, K.; Langenberger, Herbert; Kaindl, Elisabeth; Kulinna-Cosentini, Christiane; Rudas, Margaretha; Helbich, Thomas H.

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.08.016

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found the specificity of FFDM for AD lesions as 10.3%, which is lower than the specificity of 39.7% for breast cancer reported by a previous study (25). Lesions showing AD are challenging to diagnose and remain a common cause of false-negative mammography, because of subtlety and variability in presentation.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

Lifang¹,

Zhai²,

Liu³

et al. 2016

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

Lifang¹,

Zhai²,

Liu³

et al. 2016

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One of these was a CR system, which contributed 8957 (21%) of the total 42 760 evaluable cases and detected 17.9% of the cancers [26]. The overall sensitivity and specificity for cancer detection of CR and DR systems has been shown to be similar in other largescale studies and as good as or better than SFM [29,30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Early clinical trials of digital mammography showed SFM to be superior or equivalent [18][19][20]. More recent trials have shown that CR and DR perform as well as or better than SFM [22][23][24][25][27][28][29][30][31], with improved detection of ductal carcinoma in situ presenting as clustered microcalcification in younger females and in those with dense breasts [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are relatively few clinical studies comparing CR with SFM [25,[27][28][29][30]. The Digital Mammography in Screening Trial (DMIST) is the largest prospective clinical study which compared SFM with both CR and DR [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are many clinical studies comparing the performance of 9,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], there are fewer that compare CR with SFM or DR [8,25,[27][28][29][30][31][32]. We sought a method to compare the clinical diagnostic quality of two types of CR technology with that of SFM.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 µm computed radiography compared with screen–film mammography in operative breast specimens

Pagliari

Hoàng²,

Reddy³

et al. 2012

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare reader ratings of the clinical diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 mm computed radiography (CR) systems with screen-film mammography (SFM) in operative specimens. Methods: Mammograms of 57 fresh operative breast specimens were analysed by 10 readers. Exposures were made with identical position and compression with three mammographic systems (Fuji 100CR, 50CR and SFM). Images were anonymised and readers blinded to the CR system used. A five-point comparative scoring system (22 to +2) was used to assess seven quality criteria and overall diagnostic value. Statistical analysis was subsequently performed of reader ratings (n516 925). Results: For most quality criteria, both CR systems were rated as equivalent to or better than SFM. The CR systems were significantly better at demonstrating skin edge and background tissue (p,1610 25 ). Microcalcification was best demonstrated on the CR50 system (p,1610 25 ). The overall diagnostic value of both CR systems was rated as being as good as or better than SFM (p,1610 25 ). Conclusion: In this clinical setting, the overall diagnostic performance of both CR systems was as good as or better than SFM, with the CR50 system performing better than the CR100. There are currently three technologies widely available for diagnostic mammography: screen-film mammography (SFM) and two forms of large-field digital mammography [1]. The use of the term full-field digital mammography (FFDM) varies in the published literature and has been applied to both computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). Small-field digital mammography (SFDM) is mainly used for imaging during stereotactic biopsy [2].The advantages of digital mammography over SFM include: improved sensitivity in dense breast tissue, reduced radiation dose, the ability to manipulate images for review, and digital storage and retrieval methods [3]. CR was the earliest digital system in use. Imaging cassettes contain a re-useable photostimulable phosphor, replacing the traditional screen-film cassettes, and are then transferred to a laser reader. DR has an in-built detector and reader. Digital mammography has a lower spatial resolution than SFM, but has a very high contrast resolution. This allows the overall resolution of digital mammography to be at least equivalent to SFM [4][5][6][7][8], even when viewing calcification smaller than the pixel size [9]. Some CR systems have not met the quality standards of a number of governing bodies for mammography, including the European Network of Reference Assessment Centres (EUREF) and the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) [10,11]. This is related to the resolution achievable with 100 mm cassettes [12]. It is now known that CR systems using 50 mm cassettes can provide improved resolution, at an acceptable mean glandular dose, and have been approved for screening by the NHSBSP [13][14][15].Phantom studies indicate that the resolution and performance of DR are greater than those of CR [16,17], but have limitations. Although there are many clini...

show abstract

Performance of Computed Radiography and Direct Digital Radiography in a Screening Setting: Effect on the Screening Indicators

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Image Quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: Full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates

Cited by 19 publications

References 30 publications

MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 µm computed radiography compared with screen–film mammography in operative breast specimens

Performance of Computed Radiography and Direct Digital Radiography in a Screening Setting: Effect on the Screening Indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About