Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 585-592 , April 2008

Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids

  • Tamara Miner Haygood, PhD, MD

      Affiliations

    • The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Tamara Miner Haygood, PhD, MD, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1273, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030-4009
    • ,
  • Gary J. Whitman, MD

      Affiliations

    • The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
    • ,
  • E. Neely Atkinson, PhD

      Affiliations

    • The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
    • ,
  • Rumiana G. Nikolova, MS

      Affiliations

    • The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
    • ,
  • Sheisa Y. Claudio Sandoval

      Affiliations

    • Carolina, Puerto Rico.
    • ,
  • Peter J. Dempsey, MD

      Affiliations

    • The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

References 

  1. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:38–41
  2. US Food and Drug Administration. MQSA facility score card. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/scorecard-statistics.htmlAccessed December 26, 2006, and July 24, 2007
  3. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol. 2004;11:879–886
  4. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671–677
  5. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229:877–884
  6. 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;12:2188–2191
  7. 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
  8. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–1783
  9. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:185–190
  10. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–562
  11. D’Orsi CJ. Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology. 2001;221:585–586
  12. Evans WP, Warren Burhenne LJ, Laurie L, O’Shaughnessy KF, Castellino RA. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic characteristics and computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2002;225:182–189
  13. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology. 2001;220:781–786
  14. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Zisman G, DeSimio MP, Rogers SK. A computer-aided detection system for the evaluation of breast cancer by mammographic appearance and lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:893–896
  15. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002;223:483–488
  16. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe EH. Digitale Vollfeldmammographie: Vergleich zwischen radio-graphischer Direktvergroßerung und digitalem Monitorzooming. Radiologe. 2002;42:261–264
  17. Pai VR, Gregory NE, Swinford AE, Rebner M. Ductal carcinoma in situ: computer-aided detection in screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241:689–694

PII: S1546-1440(07)00641-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 585-592 , April 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution