Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?

Bick, Ulrich; Diekmann, Felix

doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0586-1

Cited by 65 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of paramagnetic contrast medium [3,10] allows the study of breast mass vascularisation, allowing the investigation of the tumoral angiogenetic bed [11][12][13]. This finding forms the basis for lesion characterisation that is not therefore based on a morphological evaluation of the mass alone but above all on the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of its vascularisation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alongside cytological and histological examinations, imaging techniques have always played a key role in diagnosing breast cancer and in the characterisation of nodular diseases of the breast that may pose a differential diagnosis. Among the breast imaging techniques commonly used, the role, advantages and limitations of mammography [2][3][4], ultrasound (US) and colour Doppler ultrasound [4][5][6][7][8][9] are well known and extensively described in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI

Caproni

Marchisio²,

Pecchi

et al. 2009

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI

Caproni

Marchisio²,

Pecchi

et al. 2009

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With additional projections this may be intercepted, thereby reducing false positive recalls [14]. Moreover, as an extra view, it is expected to contribute to the early detection of breast cancer [15,16]. Finally, low dose mammography images could be applied in post interventional mammography [17], such as marker or wire verification, or in high frequency surveillance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative Exposure Parameters and Post Process Noise Reduction Expect Considerable Dose Reduction in Single Mammography Views—Initial Experience on Mastectomy Specimens

Bluekens¹,

Engen²,

Karssemeijer³

et al. 2013

ABCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To experimentally indicate a lower limit of dose in mammographic imaging yielding adequate image quality for complementary diagnostic views, by evaluation of image series with different exposure parameters and additional image processing on mastectomy specimens with diverse pathology. Methods: Image series were obtained on seven specimens with different target-filter combinations at different exposure values. Three experienced radiologists assessed the lowest acceptable dose level per specimen using a relative grading technique. With the standard image as reference, fibroglandular tissue and pathological structures, including microcalcifications, were evaluated. Subsequently, a series of pixel binning processes was tested and subjectively assessed on the selected images. Results: The lowest dose level at which image quality was acceptable, and achieved with a W/Ag target-filter combination at 32 kV and 4 mAs. These images can be acquired with 10.4% to 22.4% of the average glandular dose in standard images. Post process pixel binning added to the interpretability of such low dose images. Conclusion: This specimen study suggests that dose level of mammography images might be reduced substantially by general application of a W/Ag spectrum, particularly when combined with post process noise reduction. Future studies should focus on the feasibility of this technique in clinical mammography.

show abstract

“…This is mainly due to its ability to detect subtle abnormalities and microcalcifications that may represent early cancer [1,2] . There has been replacement of screen-film mammography (SFM) with full field digital mammography (FFDM) in many centres because of consistent image quality of digital images, ability to post-process digital images and improved storage and transmission capabilities [3] . A number of studies have been conducted to compare screen-film with digital mammography and results have shown that digital imaging is as good as SFM in population based screening practices [4][5][6][7][8] , although most of these studies rely on surrogate end points such as cancer detection rate, recall rate and tumour characteristics at diagnosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is full field digital mammography equivalent in performance to screen film mammography? UK perspective

Bansal

Lyburn

Jones

2014

IJDI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The purpose of this project was to compare the performance of full-field digital imaging (FFDM) with screen film mammography (SFM). Methods:Data from 24,876 and 32,142 women in SFM and FFDM group respectively was collected retrospectively and comparison was made of the recall rate, breast cancer detection rate and positive predictive value (PPV) for the recalls for the two screening modalities, screen film mammography (SFM) and full field digital mammography (FFDM). Difference in radiologic characteristics of the tumours and tumour type (Ductal carcinoma in situ {DCIS} versus invasive) was also evaluated. Statistical software SPSS (PASW18) was used for data analysis with Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U test used to compare the two groups. A p value of less that 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. Results:In the year 2008-2009(SFM group), there was a recall rate of 4.5% and a cancer detection rate of 7.5/1000 in the recalled group. For the year 2009-2010 (FFDM group), there was a recall rate of 4.9% and cancer detection rate of 8.8/1000 in the recalled group. There was no statistically significant difference between the recall rate and cancer detection rate between the two groups (p = 0.157). Within the digital group, there was 88(88%) invasive cancer and 12(12%) non-invasive cancer, whereas within the analogue group, there were 74 (92.5%) invasive cancer and 6(7.5%) non-invasive cancer. Most of the non-invasive cancers in the FFDM group were high grade with only one mixed low-intermediate grade. In the analogue group, 50% were high grade, rest being low or intermediate grade. The histological distribution of cancer between two groups was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.108). Conclusion:Our study demonstrated FFDM was similar to SFM in terms of cancer detection rate, recall rate and positive predictive value for recalls. KeywordsScreen-film mammography, Full-field digital mammography, Ductal carcinoma in situ, Breast neoplasms, Cancer screening

show abstract

Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?

Abstract: High-quality full-field digital mammography has been available now for several years and is increasingly used for both diagnostic and screening mammography.

Cited by 65 publications

References 75 publications

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterisation of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI

Alternative Exposure Parameters and Post Process Noise Reduction Expect Considerable Dose Reduction in Single Mammography Views—Initial Experience on Mastectomy Specimens

Is full field digital mammography equivalent in performance to screen film mammography? UK perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About