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

Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann, Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann

Abstract

High-quality full-field digital mammography has been available now for several years and is increasingly used for both diagnostic and screening mammography. A number of different detector technologies exist, which all have their specific advantages and disadvantages. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography has been shown to be at least equivalent to film-screen mammography in a general screening population. Digital mammography is superior to screen-film mammography in younger women with dense breasts due to its ability to selectively optimize contrast in areas of dense parenchyma. This advantage is especially important in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, where intensified early detection programs may have to start from 25 to 30 years of age. Tailored image processing and computer-aided diagnosis hold the potential to further improve the early detection of breast cancer. However, at present no consensus exists among radiologists on which processing is optimal for digital mammograms. Image processing may also vary significantly among vendors with so far limited interoperability. This review aims to summarize the available information regarding the impact of digital mammography on workflow and breast cancer diagnosis.

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17 ):1773-83
    1. Med Phys. 2001 Apr;28(4):419-37
    1. Radiographics. 2004 Nov-Dec;24(6):1747-60
    1. Radiology. 1997 May;203(2):564-8
    1. Br J Radiol. 1997 Jan;70:34-38
    1. Rofo. 2006 Jul;178(7):693-7
    1. Med Phys. 2002 May;29(5):830-4
    1. Eur Radiol. 2006 Nov;16(11):2559-66
    1. Acta Radiol. 2005 Nov;46(7):679-89
    1. Phys Med Biol. 2003 Oct 7;48(19):R65-106
    1. Eur Radiol. 2006 Jul;16(7):1449-60
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Sep;179(3):671-7
    1. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17 ):1846-7
    1. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(6):918-30
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Oct;185(4):944-50
    1. Radiology. 2001 Mar;218(3):873-80
    1. Br J Radiol. 2005;78 Spec No 1:S41-5
    1. Eur J Radiol. 2006 Jan;57(1):69-75
    1. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(4):591-7
    1. Rofo. 2000 Dec;172(12 ):957-64
    1. Eur Radiol. 2002 Dec;12(12):3015-7
    1. Cancer. 2005 May 1;103(9):1898-905
    1. Med Phys. 2006 Aug;33(8):2998-3005
    1. Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):451-7
    1. Radiology. 2004 Jul;232(1):197-204
    1. Radiat Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;22(4):218-24
    1. Med Phys. 2003 Mar;30(3):442-8
    1. Radiology. 2005 Feb;234(2):353-62
    1. Invest Radiol. 2005 Jun;40(6):343-8
    1. Rofo. 2003 Jun;175(6):775-9
    1. Radiology. 2003 Dec;229(3):877-84
    1. JAMA. 1997 Mar 26;277(12):997-1003
    1. Radiology. 2001 Sep;220(3):781-6
    1. Radiology. 2002 May;223(2):483-8
    1. Med Phys. 2003 Mar;30(3):334-40
    1. Med Phys. 2006 Mar;33(3):719-36
    1. Semin Roentgenol. 2003 Jul;38(3):216-30
    1. Acad Radiol. 2001 Jun;8(6):454-66
    1. Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):554-62
    1. Invest Radiol. 2005 Jul;40(7):397-404
    1. Radiology. 2000 Sep;216(3):820-30
    1. Eur Radiol. 2006 Jan;16(1):45-52
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Feb;178(2):473-4
    1. Eur Radiol. 2002 Nov;12 (11):2679-83
    1. Phys Med Biol. 2006 May 21;51(10):2441-63
    1. Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):404-12
    1. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):168-75
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 May;176(5):1241-8
    1. Rofo. 2002 Jun;174(6):696-9
    1. Br J Radiol. 1998 Nov;71(851):1162-7
    1. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 16;354(7):765-7; author reply 765-7
    1. Radiographics. 1996 Nov;16(6):1403-11
    1. Eur Radiol. 2006 Jan;16(1):38-44
    1. Invest Radiol. 1993 May;28(5):413-9
    1. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;117(1-3):120-30
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):38-41
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):47-50
    1. Acad Radiol. 2004 Oct;11(10 ):1139-43
    1. Radiologe. 2002 Apr;42(4):261-4
    1. Eur Radiol. 2004 Nov;14(11):1990-8
    1. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):415-23

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever