Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current state of digital mammography

  • Special Feature
  • New trends in breast diagnostic imaging
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital imaging is rapidly becoming modern radiology practice, resulting in the gradual replacement of conventional radiographs. At present high-quality digital mammography has been available for several years and is increasingly used for diagnostic and screening mammography. Some different digital mammography systems exist, which all have their advantages and disadvantages. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography has been shown to be at least equivalent to screen-film mammography (SFM). Digital mammography offers some potential advantages over SFM. This article describes the current state of digital mammography and presents data from clinical trials that support the use of digital mammography technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year followup before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003;361:1405–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen M, Abdsalah S, Epstein B, Frodis E, Ljungberg E, Hedborg C, Sundbom A, Tholin M, Wiege M, Akerlund A, Wu H, Tung T, Chiu Y, Chiu C, Huang C, Smith RA, Rosén M, Stenbeck M, Holmberg L. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker LH. Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin. 1982;32:194–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Feig SA, Shaber GS, Patchefsky A, Schwartz GF, Edeiken J, Libshitz HI, Nerlinger R, Curley RF, Wallace JD. Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors. AJR 1977;128:403–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1995;33:1205–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs. full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1697–702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hermann KP, Hundertmark C, Funke M, Brenndorff AV, Grabbe E. Digital mammography in direct magnification technique using a large-area amorphous silicon X-ray detector. Rofo 1999;170:503–06.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the national cancer institute. Radiology 1992;183:629–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Grabbe E. Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography. Rofo 2000;172:940–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs. screenfilm mammography. Eur Radiol. 1977;12:2679–83.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 1977;218:873–80.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Populationbased mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skaane P, Skjennald A. 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 2004;232:197–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography, screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiographics 1998;18:893–901.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Applegate KE, Tello R, Ying J. Hypothesis testing III: counts and medians. Radiology 2003;228(3):603–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Albagli D, Hudspeth H, Possin GE, Lee JU. Performance of advanced a-Si/CsI-based flat panel x-ray detector for mammography. Proc SPIE. 2003;5030:553–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Hunter DM, Beideck DJ. Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system. Med Phys. 2006;33:2998–3005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2559–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of fullfield digital mammography to Screenfilm mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys. 2002;29:830–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sickels EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;46:661–3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2188–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1697–702.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Curtis DJ, Gayler BW, Gitlin JN, Harrington MB. Teleradiology: results of a field trial. Radiology 1983;149(2):415–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Langlotz CP. Fundamental measures of diagnostic examination performance: usefulness for clinical decision making and research. Radiology 2003;228(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field mammography vs. screen-film mamography. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2679–83.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D_Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner R. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(23):2020–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002;223:483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD, Hendriks JH, Bodicker A, Evertsz CJ, Karssemeijer N. Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bick U, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, Nishikawa RM, Doi K. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics 1996;16:1403–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Byng JW, Critten JP, Yaffe MJ. Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 1997;203:564–68.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming. Radiologe 2002;42:261–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Akihiko Shiraishi

Authors
  1. Akihiko Shiraishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akihiko Shiraishi.

About this article

Cite this article

Shiraishi, A. Current state of digital mammography. Breast Cancer 15, 194–199 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-008-0046-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-008-0046-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation