Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Breast Cancer
Volume 2011, Article ID 701054, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/701054
Research Article

Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Indirect Small-Field CCD Technique Using a High-Contrast Phantom

1Department of Radiology, Medical School, University of Cologne, Kerpenerstraße 62, 50924 Cologne, Germany
2Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany
3Testing Office for Radiation Protection, Deisterstraße 9, 30974 Wennigsen, Germany

Received 23 May 2010; Revised 1 August 2010; Accepted 11 August 2010

Academic Editor: Owen A. Ung

Copyright © 2011 Kathrin Barbara Krug et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. R. Kreienberg, I. Kopp, W. Lorenz et al., “Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft und der beteiligten medizinisch-wissenschaft-lichen Fachgesellschaften. Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms der Frau. Eine nationale S-3-Leitlinie,” http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/WWW/AWMF/ll/032-045.pdf.
  2. N. Perry, M. Broeders, F. de Wolf, S. Törnberg, R. Holland, and L. von Karsa, Eds., European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, European Commission, Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH, Köln, Germany, 4th edition, 2006, http://www.euref.org.
  3. S. Ciatto, N. Houssami, D. Ambrogetti et al., “Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: the Florence experience of over 4000 consecutive biopsies,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 291–297, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  4. F. Diekmann, S. Diekmann, U. Bick et al., “Comparing the visualization of microcalcifications with direct magnification in digital full-field mammography vs. film-screen mammography,” Fortschr Röntgenstr, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 297–300, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  5. S. Diekmann, U. Bick, H. Von Heyden, and F. Diekmann, “Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital fullfield mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography,” Fortschr Röntgenstr, vol. 175, no. 6, pp. 775–779, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  6. E. Grabbe, U. Fischer, and K.-P. Hermann, “Direkte digitale Vollfeldmammographie: stand der Technik und erste klinische Erfahrungen,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt, vol. 98, no. 19, pp. 1266–1269, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  7. K.-P. Hermann, M. Funke, and E. Grabbe, “Physikalisch-technische Aspekte der digitalen Mammographie,” Radiologe, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 256–260, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. J. James, “The current status of digital mammography,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. Obenauer, K.-P. Hermann, C. Schorn, M. Funke, U. Fischer, and E. Grabbe, “Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for the detectability of simulated microcalcifications,” Fortschr Röntgenstr, vol. 172, no. 7, pp. 646–650, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. E. D. Pisano, C. Kuzmiak, and M. Koomen, “Perspective on digital mammography,” Seminars in Roentgenology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 195–200, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. E. D. Pisano and M. J. Yaffe, “Digital mammography,” Radiology, vol. 234, no. 2, pp. 353–362, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  12. R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, M. Lell et al., “Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system,” Fortschr Röntgenstr, vol. 176, no. 8, pp. 1127–1132, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus
  13. K. B. Krug, H. Stützer, R. Girnus et al., “Comparison of the image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 181, pp. 931–937, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  14. X. J. Rong, C. C. Shaw, D. A. Johnston et al., “Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film,” Medical Physics, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2052–2061, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. W. M. Yip, S. Y. Pang, W. S. Yim, and C. S. Kwok, “ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography,” British Journal of Radiology, vol. 74, no. 883, pp. 621–628, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, I. Sechopoulos, and C. J. D'Orsi, “Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size,” Radiology, vol. 244, no. 1, pp. 130–137, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed · View at Scopus