| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Dept of Radiology, Univ of Colorado Health Sciences Ctr, CB E-030, 4200 E Ninth Ave, Denver, CO 80262 (J.M.L., R.E.H., P.K.I., G.A.S., C.C.K.); the Dept of Radiology, Univ of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester (C.J.D., L.J.M., A.K.); and AMC Cancer Research Ctr, Denver, Colo (G.R.C.). From the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received Jan 4, 2000; revision requested Jan 25; revision received Jul 17; accepted Aug 2. R.E.H. supported by grant DAMD17-96-C-6104 from the U.S. Army Breast Cancer Research and Materiel Command. Address correspondence to J.M.L. (e-mail: john.lewin@uchsc.edu).
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with screen-film mammography (SFM) for cancer detection in a screening population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: At two institutions, 4,945 FFDM examinations were performed in women aged 40 years and older presenting for SFM. Two views of each breast were acquired with each modality. SFM and FFDM images were interpreted independently. Findings detected with either SFM or FFDM were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy.
RESULTS: Patients in the study underwent 152 biopsies, which resulted in the diagnosis of 35 breast cancers. Twenty-two cancers were detected with SFM and 21 with FFDM. Four were interval cancers that became palpable within 1 year of screening and were considered false-negative findings with both modalities. The difference in cancer detection rate was not significant. FFDM had a significantly lower recall rate (11.5%; 568 of 4,945) than SFM (13.8%; 685 of 4,945) (P < .001, McNemar 
2 model; P < .03, generalized estimating equations model). The positive biopsy rate for findings detected with FFDM (30%; 21 of 69) was higher than that for findings detected with SFM (19%; 22 of 114), but this difference was not significant.
CONCLUSION: No difference in cancer detection rate has yet been observed between FFDM and SFM. FFDM has so far led to fewer recalls than SFM.
Index terms: Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.321, 00.324, 00.327 • Breast radiography, comparative studies, 00.321, 00.324, 00.327 • Breast radiography, technology, 00.119 • Cancer screening, 00.321, 00.324, 00.327 • Radiography, digital, 00.321, 00.324, 00.327
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. MINIGH Quality Assurance in Digital Mammography Radiol. Technol., May 1, 2008; 79(5): 433M - 454M. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. N.A. Tosteson, N. K. Stout, D. G. Fryback, S. Acharyya, B. A. Herman, L. G. Hannah, E. D. Pisano, and for the DMIST Investigators Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Mammography Breast Cancer Screening Ann Intern Med, January 1, 2008; 148(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Jiang, D. L. Miglioretti, C. E. Metz, and R. A. Schmidt Breast Cancer Detection Rate: Designing Imaging Trials to Demonstrate Improvements Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 360 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Skaane, A. Kshirsagar, S. Stapleton, K. Young, and R. A. Castellino Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 377 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. T. Yang, C.-J. Lai, G. J. Whitman, W. A. Murphy Jr., M. J. Dryden, A. C. Kushwaha, A. A. Sahin, D. Johnston, P. J. Dempsey, and C. C. Shaw Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): W576 - W581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. H. Kim, E. D. Pisano, E. B. Cole, M. R. Jiroutek, K. E. Muller, Y. Zheng, C. M. Kuzmiak, and M. A. Koomen Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 47 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Schueller, E. Kaindl, W. K. Matzek, F. Semturs, C. Schueller-Weidekamm, and T. H. Helbich Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 38 - 43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. V. Ongeval, H. Bosmans, and A. Van Steen Current challenges of full field digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 148 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Dershaw Film or digital mammographic screening? N. Engl. J. Med., October 27, 2005; 353(17): 1846 - 1847. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. K. Nishino, X. Wu, and R. F. Johnson Jr. Thickness of Molybdenum Filter and Squared Contrast-to-Noise Ratio per Dose for Digital Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 960 - 963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, C. Balleyguier, F. Diekmann, S. Diekmann, J.-C. Piguet, K. Young, and L. T. Niklason Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading--Observer Performance Study Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 37 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gur Technology and Practice Assessment: In Search of a "Desirable" Statement Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 659 - 660. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Pisano and M. J. Yaffe Digital Mammography Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 353 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Mahesh AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Digital Mammography: An Overview RadioGraphics, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 1747 - 1760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane and A. Skjennald Screen-Film Mammography versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading: Randomized Trial in a Population-based Screening Program--The Oslo II Study Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. T. Yang, G. J. Whitman, M. M. Johnson, M. Bolanos-Clark, A. C. Kushwaha, K. K. Hunt, and P. J. Dempsey Needle Localization for Excisional Biopsy of Breast Lesions: Comparison of Effect of Use of Full-Field Digital versus Screen-Film Mammographic Guidance on Procedure Time Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 277 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kallergi, J. J. Heine, C. G. Berman, M. R. Hersh, A. P. Romilly, and R. A. Clark Improved Interpretation of Digitized Mammography with Wavelet Processing: A Localization Response Operating Characteristic Study Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2004; 182(3): 697 - 703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, K. Young, and A. Skjennald Population-based Mammography Screening: Comparison of Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading--Oslo I Study Radiology, December 1, 2003; 229(3): 877 - 884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Lewin, P. K. Isaacs, V. Vance, and F. J. Larke Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Subtraction Mammography: Feasibility Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 261 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Zheng, L. A. Hardesty, W. R. Poller, J. H. Sumkin, and S. Golla Mammography with Computer-aided Detection: Reproducibility Assessment—Initial Experience Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 58 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Smith, D. Saslow, K. Andrews Sawyer, W. Burke, M. E. Costanza, W. P. Evans III, R. S. Foster Jr., E. Hendrick, H. J. Eyre, and S. Sener American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003 CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2003; 53(3): 141 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. B. Cole, E. D. Pisano, E. O. Kistner, K. E. Muller, M. E. Brown, S. A. Feig, R. A. Jong, A. D. A. Maidment, M. J. Staiger, C. M. Kuzmiak, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts Who Underwent Problem-solving Mammography: Effects of Image Processing and Lesion Type Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 153 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, H. Ved, S. P. Baker, and C. J. D'Orsi Flat-Panel Digital Mammography System: Contrast-Detail Comparison between Screen-Film Radiographs and Hard-Copy Images Radiology, December 1, 2002; 225(3): 801 - 807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R A Rudick, G Cutter, and S Reingold The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: a new clinical outcome measure for multiple sclerosis trials Multiple Sclerosis, October 1, 2002; 8(5): 359 - 365. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. E. Carroll Tunable Monochromatic X Rays: A New Paradigm in Medicine Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 583 - 590. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Lewin, C. J. D'Orsi, R. E. Hendrick, L. J. Moss, P. K. Isaacs, A. Karellas, and G. R. Cutter Clinical Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography for Detection of Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 671 - 677. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Shaffer, I. Khalkhali, and S. B. Haber Sestamibi Scanning of Breast Cancer J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2002; 43(1): 125 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall, L. A. Venta, and R. E. Hendrick Mammographic Density Categories Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2002; 178(1): 242 - 243. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Rosenberg and C. A. Kelsey Double-Imaging Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2001; 221(1): 273 - 273. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Stefanek, L. Hartmann, and W. Nelson Risk-Reduction Mastectomy: Clinical Issues and Research Needs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 5, 2001; 93(17): 1297 - 1297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
