Issues to Consider in Converting to Digital Mammography

Pisano, Etta D.; Zuley, Margarita L.; Baum, Janet K.; Marques, Helga S.

doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.007

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each manufacturer provides one or more choices of radiologist review workstation, and the FDA has approved at least six additional third-party review workstations for interpretation of digital mammograms. One might assume, as we did, that because these acquisition and display systems are DICOM compliant and FDA approved, lesion size measurements would be accurate and consistent regardless of the acquisition-display combination [1]. Through first-hand experience, we have learned that this is not always the case.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Lesion Size Inaccuracies in Digital Mammography

Paquelet

Hendrick²

2010

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Lesion Size Inaccuracies in Digital Mammography

Paquelet

Hendrick²

2010

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, these studies included independent double readings of digital mammograms (17,24), and for the study that found a significantly higher rate (24) there was, on average, an 8-year difference between study periods of the SFM and CR cohorts. The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial, or DMIST, examined performance by machine type as an exploratory analysis and found that the CR machine used (Fuji CR) was equivalent to SFM in cancer detection and positive predictive value; however, the sample size was much smaller and the investigators did not adjust for patient or center characteristics (33). The ability to depict small structures in DM depends on the spatial resolution, which in turn depends on the size of the detector element (pixel size) and scattering of light in the detector.…”

Section: Breast Imaging: Digital Versus Screen-film Mammography In Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Performance Measures in Concurrent Cohorts within an Organized Breast Screening Program

Chiarelli¹,

Edwards²,

Prummel³

et al. 2013

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 FFDM systems were used in this paired multicentre screening trial, which enrolled 49 528 females. 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: 88%

“…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%

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

Issues to Consider in Converting to Digital Mammography

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Lesion Size Inaccuracies in Digital Mammography

Lesion Size Inaccuracies in Digital Mammography

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Performance Measures in Concurrent Cohorts within an Organized Breast Screening Program

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About