Studies Comparing Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Review

被引:105
作者
Skaane, P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oslo, Ullevaal Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Ctr, NO-0407 Oslo, Norway
关键词
Breast neoplasms; radiography; breast radiography; comparative studies; cancer screening; full-field digital mammography; interobserver variation; POSITIVE PREDICTIVE-VALUE; SOFT-COPY; IMAGE QUALITY; OBSERVER VARIABILITY; INTERPRETATION TIMES; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; LESION DETECTION; PIXEL SIZE; FOLLOW-UP;
D O I
10.1080/02841850802563269
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has several potential benefits as compared with screen-film mammography (SFM) in mammography screening. Digital technology also opens for implementation of advanced applications, including computer-aided detection (CAD) and tomosynthesis. Phantom studies and experimental clinical studies have shown that FFDM is equal or slightly superior to SFM for detection and characterization of mammographic abnormalities. Despite obvious advantages, the conversion to digital mammography has been slower than anticipated, and not only due to higher costs. Until very recently, some countries did not even permit the use of digital mammography in breast cancer screening. The reason for this reluctant attitude was concern about lower spatial resolution and about using soft-copy reading. Furthermore, there was a lack of data supporting improved diagnostic accuracy using FFDM in a screening setting, since two pioneer trials both showed nonsignificantly lower cancer detection rate at FFDM. The 10 studies comparing FFDM and SFM in mammography screening published so far have shown divergent and rather conflicting results. Nevertheless, there is a rapid conversion to digital mammography in breast cancer screening in many western countries. The aim of this article is to give an updated review of these studies, discuss the conflicting findings, and draw some conclusions from the results.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 14
页数:12
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists - Findings from a national sample [J].
Beam, CA ;
Layde, PM ;
Sullivan, DC .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 156 (02) :209-213
[2]   Breast imaging reporting and data system: Inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment [J].
Berg, WA ;
Campassi, C ;
Langenberg, P ;
Sexton, MJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 174 (06) :1769-1777
[3]   Digital and screen-film mammography: Comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times [J].
Berns, EA ;
Hendrick, RE ;
Solari, M ;
Barke, L ;
Reddy, D ;
Wolfman, J ;
Segal, L ;
DeLeon, P ;
Benjamin, S ;
Willis, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 187 (01) :38-41
[4]   Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know? [J].
Bick, Ulrich ;
Diekmann, Felix .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2007, 17 (08) :1931-1942
[5]  
BJURSTAM N, 2006, RADIOLOGY, V241, P392
[6]   Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value [J].
Bonardi, R ;
Ambrogetti, D ;
Ciatto, S ;
Gentile, E ;
Lazzari, B ;
Mantellini, P ;
Nannelli, E ;
Ristori, E ;
Sottani, L ;
Del Turco, MR .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 55 (02) :258-263
[7]   The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography [J].
Burnside, ES ;
Park, JM ;
Fine, JP ;
Sisney, GA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 185 (03) :790-796
[8]   Digital mammography: Observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications [J].
Chan, HP ;
Helvie, MA ;
Petrick, N ;
Sahiner, B ;
Adler, DD ;
Paramagul, C ;
Roubidoux, MA ;
Blane, CE ;
Joynt, LK ;
Wilson, TE ;
Hadjiiski, LM ;
Goodsitt, MM .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2001, 8 (06) :454-466
[9]   A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting [J].
Ciatto, S ;
Brancato, B ;
Baglioni, R ;
Turci, A .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2006, 57 (01) :69-75
[10]   Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population [J].
Cole, E ;
Pisano, ED ;
Brown, M ;
Kuzmiak, C ;
Braeuning, MP ;
Kim, HH ;
Jong, R ;
Walsh, R .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2004, 11 (08) :879-886