Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography
- PMID: 12386757
- DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1354-x
Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography
Abstract
The goal of this prospective study was to compare a full-field digital mammography system (FFDM) to a conventional screen-film mammography system (SFM) for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Fifty-five patients with 57 isolated microcalcification clusters were examined using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.) and a SFM system (Senographe DMR, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.). A conventional screen-film mammogram and a digital contact mammogram were obtained of each cluster. The image quality and the number of calcification particles were evaluated, and a characterization (BI-RADS 1-5) of microcalcifications was given by four experienced readers. Histopathology revealed 16 benign lesions (sclerosing adenosis, dysplasia, hamartoma, radial scar) in 15 patients and 21 malignant tumors (in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma) in 20 patients. Twenty patients had benign changes verified by long-term follow-up. Image quality of FFDM was assessed as superior to SFM in more than 50% of the cases. The FFDM showed more calcifications in 41% of all cases. Sensitivity and specificity for FFDM vs SFM were 95.2 vs 91.9% and 41.4 vs 39.3%, respectively. Moreover, FFDM demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy (deviation: 0.86 BI-RADS steps) compared with FSM (deviation 0.93 BI-RADS steps). The FFDM system with a 100- micro m pixel size provides better image quality than SFM in patients with mammographic microcalcifications. The FFDM has a higher sensitivity and a higher reliability in characterizing microcalcifications.
Similar articles
-
[Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].Rofo. 2003 Jun;175(6):775-9. doi: 10.1055/s-2003-39933. Rofo. 2003. PMID: 12811689 German.
-
Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization.Radiat Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;21(4):166-71. Radiat Med. 2003. PMID: 14514123
-
[Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming].Radiologe. 2002 Apr;42(4):261-4. doi: 10.1007/s00117-002-0733-2. Radiologe. 2002. PMID: 12063732 German.
-
Impact of full field digital mammography on the classification and mammographic characteristics of interval breast cancers.Eur J Radiol. 2015 Jun;84(6):1056-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.03.007. Epub 2015 Mar 14. Eur J Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25816990 Review.
-
Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review.Acta Radiol. 2009 Jan;50(1):3-14. doi: 10.1080/02841850802563269. Acta Radiol. 2009. PMID: 19037825 Review.
Cited by
-
Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.Eur Radiol. 2008 Jun;18(6):1134-43. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0. Epub 2008 Feb 27. Eur Radiol. 2008. PMID: 18301902
-
Mammographic features and histopathological findings of interval breast cancers.Acta Radiol. 2008 Nov;49(9):975-81. doi: 10.1080/02841850802403730. Acta Radiol. 2008. PMID: 18785026 Free PMC article.
-
Soft copy digital mammography.Korean J Radiol. 2005 Oct-Dec;6(4):206-7. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2005.6.4.206. Korean J Radiol. 2005. PMID: 16374076 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.Pathol Oncol Res. 2022 Jun 8;28:1610382. doi: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610382. eCollection 2022. Pathol Oncol Res. 2022. PMID: 35755417 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?Eur Radiol. 2014 Apr;24(4):907-12. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3055-z. Epub 2013 Nov 12. Eur Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24217642
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical