Population-based Mammography Screening: Comparison of Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading—Oslo I Study

Skaane, Per; Young, K. C.; Skjennald, Arnulf

doi:10.1148/radiol.2293021171

Cited by 203 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The centers that participated in the DMIST met the quality control standards for both digital and analog mammography (9). Other studies comparing conventional and digital mammography have shown similar results to the DMIST (10)(11). In the present study, lack of quality control in the image processing can explain the poor quality in the CR and analog systems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Assessment of mammography image quality in istanbul city

Gurdemir

Arıbal²

2012

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

468 Mammography is the only proven effective method for breast cancer screening (1). Image quality in mammography plays an important role in detecting small lesions and microcalcifications. Low quality images lead to underdiagnosis of in situ and early cancers (2). Quality standards for mammography are established in Western countries, and breast imaging units are accredited and strictly monitored (3-5). Unfortunately, Turkey has no established standards. The Manual for Quality Standards of Conventional Mammography prepared by the Turkish Radiological Society (TRS) contains the only guidelines published in Turkey (6), and the manual has not been used in an accreditation program. A volunteer accreditation program has been developed by the Society for Conventional Mammography but, to our knowledge, no applications have been made to date. The only obligatory inspection for mammography machines occurs in the application for a license during the registration process conducted by the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority. However, this process does not take the image quality into account.The aim of the present study was to assess the image quality of mammography units in İstanbul. Materials and methodsA total of 55 mammography units in İstanbul were visited between November 2010 and March 2011. The list of the mammography units was obtained from the health authorities. Four centers refused to enter the study. Twenty-four of the units belonged to public healthcare facilities, and 27 were private centers. The public health care facilities included three university hospitals, one military research hospital, 11 public educational research hospitals, and nine public hospitals or clinics. The private centers included three private university hospitals, 18 private hospitals, and eight private centers. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) equipment was used in 18 units, 24 units used computed radiology (CR) for digital imaging, and an analog mammography system was used in nine units. Two machines did not have an automatic exposure control (AEC) system. An American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom was used to assess image quality. We used a phantom (Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Model 015 [Z 673], Norfolk, Virginia, USA) made of acrylic that contained 16 structures mimicking masses such as calcifications and fibers that was the equivalent of 4.5 cm thickness of compressed breast tissue. Each unit exposed the phantom according to its own protocol for a craniocaudal (CC) view of a standard size (B cup) breast. All exposures were performed using the AEC system with the exception of those made by the two units that did not have AEC systems. In these units the technologists were asked to use the same protocol they used to take a CC view of a standard size breast. The BREAST IMAGING ORIGINAL ARTICLE Assessment of mammography quality in İstanbulBurcu Gürdemir, Erkin Arıbal PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the mammography image quality in İstanbul and to survey the awareness of mammography quality. MATERIALS AND METHOD...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Assessment of mammography image quality in istanbul city

Gurdemir

Arıbal²

2012

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Larger clinical studies avoiding further irradiation include prospective randomised trials or retrospective comparisons from screening populations. 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%

“…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

“…None of the clinical trials so far has demonstrated significant differences in detection performance in a general screening population between film-screen and digital mammography. While in the study of Lewin et al [33], the recall rate with digital mammography was significantly lower than with film-screen mammography, both the Oslo I and II studies found a higher recall with digital mammography [34,36]. These results are difficult to compare, since the recall rates in the US are in general much higher than in European screening programs (Table 2).…”

Section: Clinical Comparison Of Digital and Film-screen Mammographymentioning

confidence: 93%