Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MAMMOGRAPHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

[Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven digital and film-screen mammographies depicting histologically proven lesions (27 benign, 20 malignant) were assessed by 4 readers. The images obtained with the different systems were comparable in terms of positioning. Maximum time interval between film-screen mammography and digital mammography was three months. Using a questionnaire, the readers evaluated the number of microcalcifications and their subjective conspicuity for FFDM (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, USA) and FSM. A 7-point scale based on the BIRADS classification was used to characterize the calcifications by means of ROC analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were seen between the two types of mammography among the readers in assessing the number of microcalcifications. The subjective conspicuity of microcalcifications was found to be significantly better for digital mammographies. The diagnosis assigned by the readers did not show significant differences between the two systems. CONCLUSION: Although the subjective conspicuity of microcalcifications was found to be significantly better on digital mammography compared to film-screen mammography, there was no significant advantage of digital mammography resulting from the higher contrast resolution nor a disadvantage in terms of characterization of microcalcifications resulting from the lower spacial resolution. The advantages of digital mammography (e. g. CAD-systems, archiving, dose reduction) can be used without a loss of diagnostic quality.

Breast Diseases↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography.

Patients with abnormal breast findings (n = 413) were examined by mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance (MR) mammography; 185 invasive cancers, 38 carcinoma in situ and 254 benign tumours were confirmed histologically. Sensitivity for mammography was 83.7%, for sonography it was 89.1% and for MR mammography it was 94.6% for invasive cancers. In 42 patients with multifocal invasive cancers, multifocality had been detected by mammography and sonography in 26.2%, and by MR mammography in 66.7%. In nine patients with multicentric cancers, detection rates were 55.5, 55.5 and 88.8%, respectively. Carcinoma in situ was diagnosed by mammography in 78.9% and by MR mammography in 68.4% of patients. Combination of all three diagnostic methods lead to the best results for detection of invasive cancer and multifocal disease. However, sensitivity of mammography and sonography combined was identical to that of MR mammography (i.e., 94.6%).

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1997

Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to assess the added value of MR mammography, mammography, and sonography compared with mammography and sonography in diagnostic evaluation of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated reports of MR mammography, conventional mammography, and sonography of the breast in 89 patients who had been referred for surgical biopsy. The dynamic MR mammography examinations were obtained on a 1.0-T MR imager using a double-breast coil and a three-dimensional axial fast low-angle shot sequence. Each type of study was interpreted by a different observer. All mammograms and sonograms were available to all observers. Without knowledge of biopsy results, observers classified mammograms and sonograms (which we call the standard method) as well as mammograms, sonograms, and MR mammograms (which we call the combined method). Classifications were on a per-breast basis: no disease; probably a benign or malignant lesion; and most likely a benign or malignant lesion. A classification of no disease or most likely a benign or malignant lesion was considered to represent a high confidence of the observer in the diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 98 breasts evaluated with the standard method, observer confidence was high for 44% of all malignant lesions versus 86% with the combined method. The highest specificity (92%) was achieved by interpretation of the standard method (combined method, 64%). The highest sensitivity (95%) was achieved by interpretation of the combined method (standard method, 83%). Overall accuracy was 87% for the standard method and 83% for the combined method. In separate analyses of nonpalpable and palpable lesions, the combined method achieved an accuracy of 74% for nonpalpable lesions and 88% for palpable lesions. The standard method achieved an accuracy of 85% for nonpalpable lesions and 88% for palpable lesions. CONCLUSION: MR mammography as an adjunct to mammography and sonography reveals breast cancer with a higher confidence and sensitivity than do mammography and sonography only. The combined method can be recommended if the greatest possible sensitivity or negative predictive value is wanted. However, the combined method is not useful for screening or workup of suspicious lesions because of its lower specificity and accuracy.

Breast↗
PubMed2004

Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography System with that of standard screen-film mammography in a population of women presenting for screening or diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrollment of patients took place at six different breast-imaging centers between 1997 and 1999. A total of 247 cases were selected for inclusion in the final reader study. All known cancer cases were included (111) from all six participating sites representing 45% of the total cases. The remaining 136 cases (55%) were randomly selected from all available benign or negative cases from three of the six sites. A complete case consisted of both a (unilateral or bilateral) digital and screen-film mammogram of the same patient. Eight radiologists interpreted the cases in laser-printed digital and screen-film hardcopy formats. The study was designed to detect differences of 0.05 in the ROC area under the curve (AUC) between digital and screen-film radiologist interpretation performance. RESULTS: The average AUC for the Senoscan digital was 0.715 for the 8 readers. The average AUC for screen-film was 0.765. The difference AUC of -0.05 falls within the 95% confidence interval (-0.101, 0.002). The average sensitivity was 66% and specificity 67% for SenoScan full-field digital mammography. The average screen-film mammography sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the Fischer Senoscan and screen-film mammography was detected in this study.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

[Ultrasound mammography and magnetic resonance mammography as adjunctive methods in mammography screening].

Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance (MR) tomography are helpful tools to evaluate unclear lesions found at screening mammography. Ultrasound is particularly useful to prove the presence of a cyst or to further examine unclear, asymmetrical densities. With MR mammography, carcinomas can be found even when x-ray mammography or ultrasonography are limited due to diffuse, benign, proliferative changes. Ultrasound guidance has greatly facilitated core needle biopsy for suspicious lesions. Additionally, approved devices for MR-guided biopsy are commercially available. As a primary screening tool, ultrasound or MR mammography may be used only in women who are positive for BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 mutations or who are otherwise at high risk for breast cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.

The objective of this study was a comparison of a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system and a conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) system with respect to the detectability of simulated small masses and microcalcifications in the magnification mode. All images were obtained using 1.8 times magnification. The FFDM images were obtained at radiation dose levels of 1.39, 1.0, 0.7, 0.49 and 0.24 times that of the SFM images. A contrast-detail phantom was used to compare the detection of simulated lesions using a four alternative forced-choice reader study with three readers. The correct observation ratio (COR) was calculated as the fraction of correctly identified lesions to the total number of simulated lesions. Soft-copy reading was performed for all digital images. Direct magnification images acquired with the digital system showed a lower object contrast threshold than those acquired with the conventional system. For equal radiation dose, the digital system provided a significantly increased COR (0.95) compared with the screen-film system (0.82). For simulated microcalcifications, the corresponding difference was 0.90 to 0.72. The digital system allowed equal detection to screen-film at 40% of the radiation dose used for screen film. Digital magnification images are superior to screen-film magnification images for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications even at a lower radiation dose.

Breast Diseases↗
PubMed2001

Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to determine the rates and causes of disagreements in interpretation between full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing diagnostic mammography were invited to participate in the digital mammography study. Three views, selected by the radiologist interpreting the film-screen mammography, were obtained in both film-screen mammography and digital mammography. Radiologists independently assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category to the film-screen mammography and the digital mammography images. The BI-RADS categories were grouped into the general categories of agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement. A third and different radiologist reviewed all cases of disagreement, reached a decision as to management, and determined the primary cause of disagreement. RESULTS: Six radiologists reviewed digital mammography and film-screen mammography diagnostic images in a total of 1147 breasts in 692 patients. Agreement between digital mammography and final film-screen mammography assessment was present in 937 breasts (82%), partial agreement in 159 (14%), and disagreement in 51 (4%), for a kappa value of 0.29. The primary causes of disagreement were differences in management approach of the radiologists (52%), information derived from sonography or additional film-screen mammograms (34%), and technical differences between the two mammographic techniques (10%). CONCLUSION: Significant disagreement between film-screen mammography and digital mammography affecting follow-up management was present in only 4% of breasts. The most frequent cause of disagreement in interpretation was a difference in management approach between radiologists (interobserver variability). This source of variability was larger than that due to differences in lesion visibility between film-screen mammography and digital mammography.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

[Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer--comparison with film-screen mammography].

The aim of this study is to present efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography (CR-mammography) in diagnosis of breast cancer. Ninety-seven cases with breast cancer including 44 cases less than 2 cm in macroscopic size (t1 cases) were evaluated using storage phosphor-based digital mammography (2000 x 2510 pixels by 10 bits). Abnormal findings on CR-mammography were detected in 86 cases (88.7%) of 97 women with breast cancer. Sensitivity of CR-mammography was 88.7%. It was superior to that of film-screen mammography. On t1 breast cancer cases, sensitivity on CR-mammography was 88.6%. False negative rate in t1 breast cancer cases was reduced by image processing using CR-mammography. To evaluate microcalcifications, CR-mammograms and film-screen mammograms were investigated in 22 cases of breast cancer proven pathologically the existence of microcalcifications and 11 paraffin tissue blocks of breast cancer. CR-mammography was superior to film-screen mammography in recognizing of microcalcifications. As regards the detectability for the number and the shape of microcalcifications, CR-mammography was equivalent to film-screen mammography. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis by eight observers was performed for CR-mammography and film-screen mammography with 54 breast cancer patients and 54 normal cases. The detectability of abnormal findings of breast cancer on CR-mammography (ROC area = 0.91) was better than that on film-screen mammography (ROC area = 0.88) (p less than 0.05). Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer was discussed and demonstrated in this study.

Adenocarcinoma, Scirrhous↗
PubMed2006

The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic mammography is performed on women with clinical symptoms that suggest breast cancer or women for whom further mammographic evaluation has been requested because of an abnormal screening mammography. We assessed whether the use of full-field digital mammography would improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in a diagnostic population compared with film-screen mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2003, 11,621 patients underwent diagnostic mammography at the University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill. Among these 11,621 patients, 1400 lesions in 1121 patients underwent biopsy. We included the biopsy-performed lesions, so PPV3 was used for comparison of PPVs between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Six breast radiologists interpreted the images using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System of the American College of Radiology. PPV3s were compared between film-screen and full-field digital mammography in the entire study cohort and in specified subgroups according to different radiologists, breast density, and lesion type on mammography. The chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparison of PPV3s between two modalities of mammography with the Bonferroni procedure for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: In the entire study cohort, PPV3s of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography were similar (difference in PPV3,-0.007; 95% confidence interval, -0.081 to 0.068; P = .8602). In predefined subgroups, there was no difference in PPV3 by the radiologist, breast density, or lesion type between two modalities of mammography (P > .005). CONCLUSION: There is no improvement in PPV for the diagnosis of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in a large diagnostic population.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere?

The objectives of our study were to analyse the use of diagnostic mammography among nonattenders and attenders in organised mammography screening in Denmark in 2000, to assess the contamination from organised screening of noninvited age groups and to measure the impact of local policy on opportunistic screening. Data on all diagnostic mammographies performed in Denmark in 2000 and data on women targeted by the 2 organised mammography screening programmes in Copenhagen and the county of Fyn were collected. All data were linked by the Danish personal identification number. Information on the official policy in 2000 with regard to opportunistic screening was collected from all counties. The proportion of women using diagnostic mammography was only 1-3% for both attenders and nonattenders in organised mammography screening, but it was significantly higher in Copenhagen than in Fyn, due to availability of mammography in private clinics. The proportion of women using diagnostic mammography varied from 1-4% across counties. The official policy on access to diagnostic mammography and contamination from organised mammography screening of adjacent age groups had no impact on the use. Instead, urbanisation was positively correlated with use of diagnostic mammography. In conclusion, our results clearly showed that nonattenders in organised mammography screening programmes do not seek mammography outside the programme. Since a positive policy toward opportunistic screening did not have any effect, our results add further evidence to existing knowledge that the only reasonable way to achieve high mammography coverage is through a well-organised screening programme.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Mammography facility characteristics and repeat mammography use among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine mammography facility characteristics and explore how such characteristics may impact repeat mammography use. METHODS: Mammography facility characteristics were obtained through a mailed a 21-item survey to Kansas mammography facilities. Medicare mammography claims were used to calculate facility-specific repeat mammography rates. Administrative data included female Kansas beneficiaries aged 65 years and older (N = 39,035) with a baseline mammogram during 1999. Beneficiaries with a mammography claim 12-18 months after their baseline mammogram were deemed to have had a repeat mammogram. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90% (N = 79) of the 97 facilities serving >10 beneficiaries. Most facilities were in rural communities (58%), had an on-site radiologist (58%), and mailed mammography reminders to patients (63%). Extended hours of operation and the acceptance of self-referrals were uncommon (33% and 37%, respectively). Few facilities employed a quality improvement team (33%) or measured annual patient return rates (18%), but many measured patient satisfaction (57%). Of the beneficiaries, 61% had a repeat mammogram during the subsequent 12-18 months (range, 0% to 84%). Facilities notifying primary care providers of patients due for mammograms had higher repeat mammography rates. Multiple regression analyses found that higher repeat mammography rates were associated with facilities that accepted self-referrals, measured patient satisfaction, were in urban areas, and served a larger proportion of white beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Mammography facility characteristics and repeat mammography rates vary widely. Although modifiable facility characteristics that may influence repeat mammography need additional study, results from this study indicate that mammography facilities are an opportunistic arena for quality improvement endeavors.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to compare full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of breast cancer in a screening population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy. RESULTS: Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings: a randomized controlled trial of computerized reminders as a component of a program to facilitate mammography.

In a one-year randomized controlled trial, we assessed the effectiveness of a computerized mammography reminder system as a component of a program to increase the use of screening mammography in three health care organizations serving inner-city women in Detroit, Michigan (two sites of a health department, one HMO site, and two sites of a private hospital). Four thousand four hundred and one women older than 40 who had visited a study site in the preceding year were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Limited intervention (LI) included physician and staff breast cancer control education, facilitated mammography appointment scheduling procedures, and elimination of out-of-pocket patient cost for mammography (at three of five sites). Full intervention (FI) included all components of limited intervention plus an additional series of "cues-to-action." These included a mammography reminder form inserted in the medical record of women who were due to have mammography, intended to increase physician referral for mammography appointments, and patient reminders intended to increase completion of mammography among referred women. During the one-year intervention period 2,725 randomized women visited a study site. The 6-month mammography appointment rates among FI women vary from 38% to 65% and the FI rate exceeds the LI rate at each site with differences from 13% (95% CI, 6 to 20) to 29% (21 to 38). The annual completed mammography rate among FI women extends from 43% to 64% and exceeds the LI rate at each site by 12% (5 to 19) to 25% (16 to 34). After age-adjustment, the mammography intervention effect sizes among the five sites were not significantly different. The average increase in FI compared to LI was 18%. The computerized reminder system is effective in increasing the use of mammography in each of the study institutions and the major effect is on physician referral for mammography.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

PURPOSE: To compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-field digital and screen-film mammography were performed in 3,683 women aged 50-69 years. Two standard views of each breast were acquired with each modality. Images underwent independent double reading with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates and positive predictive values were calculated. Cancer detection rates determined with both modalities were compared by using the McNemar test for paired proportions. Retrospective side-by-side analysis for conspicuity of cancers was performed by an external independent radiologist group with experience in both modalities. RESULTS: In 3,683 cases, 31 cancers were detected. Screen-film mammography depicted 28 (0.76%) malignancies, and full-field digital mammography depicted 23 (0.62%) malignancies. The difference between cancer detection rates was not significant (P =.23). The recall rate for full-field digital mammography (4.6%; 168 of 3,683 cases) was slightly higher than that for screen-film mammography (3.5%; 128 of 3,683 cases). The positive predictive value based on needle biopsy results was 46% for screen-film mammography and 39% for full-field digital mammography. Side-by-side image comparison for cancer conspicuity led to classification of 19 cancers as equal for probability of malignancy, six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at screen-film mammography, and six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at full-field digital mammography. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between screen-film and full-field digital mammography. Cancer conspicuity was equal with both modalities. Full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading is comparable to screen-film mammography in population-based screening.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation for reader performance in detection and classification of breast lesions in women in a screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regional ethics committee approved the study; signed patient consents were obtained. Two-view mammograms were obtained with digital and screen-film systems at previous screening studies. Six readers interpreted images. Interpretation included Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and five-level probability-of-malignancy scores. A case was one breast, with two standard views acquired with both screen-film mammography and digital mammography. The standard for an examination with normal findings was classification of normal (category 1) assigned by two independent readers; for cases with benign findings, the standard was benign results at diagnostic work-up in patients who were recalled. Cases with normal or benign findings that manifested as neither interval cancer nor as cancer at subsequent screening were considered the standard. All cancers were confirmed histologically. Images were interpreted by readers in two sessions 5 weeks apart; the same case was not seen twice in any session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and, for a given true-positive fraction, 2 x 2 table analysis and the McNemar test were used. For binary outcome, classification of BI-RADS category 3 or higher was defined as positive for cancer. RESULTS: Cases with proved findings (n = 232) were displayed: 46 with cancers, 88 with benign findings, and 98 with normal findings. ROC analysis for all readers and all cases revealed a higher area under ROC curve (A(z)) for digital mammography (0.916) than for screen-film mammography (0.887) (P = .22). Five of six readers had a higher performance rating with digital mammography; one of five demonstrated a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with A(z) values; two showed a significant difference in favor of digital mammography with ROC analysis for a given false-positive fraction (P = .01 and .03, respectively). For cases with cancer, digital mammography resulted in correct classification of an average of three additional cancers per reader. For digital versus screen-film mammography, 2 x 2 table analysis for cancers revealed a higher true-positive rate; for benign masses, a higher true-negative rate. Neither of these differences nor any others from analysis of subgroups between the modalities were significant. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography allowed correct classification of more breast cancers than did screen-film mammography. A(z) value was higher for digital mammography; this difference was not significant.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film.

Well-publicized results of the recent Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) have again shown that there is no clear advantage in mammographic screening of the general population with digital versus film mammography. However, several subgroups--women less than 50 years old, pre- or perimenopausal, and denser breasts--did better with digital mammography than with film. Data also suggest that women with the opposite characteristics might do better with film mammography. This article reviews the data of the four studies comparing digital and film mammographic screening. In addition, it describes the technology involved in the two types of mammographic image capture, the advantages and disadvantages of each type of imaging, and the future possibilities opened by digital technique. Because less than one-tenth of mammography units in use in the United States are digital, the availability of this technology to women undergoing screening and to physicians referring patients to screening sites is very limited. The author suggests that the quality of mammography, rather than the technique used to capture the image, is more important in selecting a mammography facility. For those who have a facility that offers both digital and film mammography, consultation on which type of imaging might be better for an individual woman would be appropriate. Because digital mammography from different manufacturers is based on differing technologies and because data comparing the advantages or disadvantages of these differing types of equipment are not available, it is impossible to recommend which type of digital mammography equipment is best for those undergoing mammography with these types of units.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.

To determine if the improved contrast resolution of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with reduced spatial resolution allows for superior or equal phantom object detection compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). Tissue equivalent breast phantoms simulating an adipose to glandular ratio of 50/50,30/70, and 20/80 were imaged according to each manufacturers' recommendation with four full-field digital mammography units (Fuji, Sectra, Fischer, and General Electric) and a screen-film mammography unit (MammoMatII 2000, Siemens, Munich, Germany). A total of 20 images were obtained in both hard- and soft-copy formats. For the purpose of soft-copy display, the screen-film hard-copy images were digitized with a 50 microm micron scanner. Six radiologists, experts in breast imaging, and three physicists, experts in scoring mammography phantoms, participated in a reader study where each reader scored each phantom for visibility of line-pairs and for 24 objects (fibers, clusters of specks, and masses). The data were recorded, entered into a database, and analyzed by a mixed-effect model. The limiting spatial resolution in line-pairs per millimeter visible with the digital units was less, regardless of display modality used, than that provided by the screen-film unit. The difference was statistically significant for the General Electric (p < 0.01) and Fuji digital mammography units (p = 0.03). With respect to the number of visible objects, a statistically significant higher number could be detected with the screen-film unit as compared to the Fischer (p < 0.01) and Sectra (p < 0.01) digital mammography units, but there was no significant difference between the other digital units and screen film. Overall, there was significantly better performance on the 50/50 phantom than with the 30/70 and 20/80 phantoms (p = 0.01, p < 0.01) for object visibility. For the digital mammography units, soft-copy display performed better than hard-copy display for the Fischer and Sectra images, but worse for Fuji and General Electric. In addition, soft-copy display of digitized screen-film images was significantly better than hard-copy display (p =0.02) of the original screen films for object visibility, but worse for spatial resolution. The higher contrast resolution of the FFDM units tested did not result in improved detection of line-pair resolution or objects in the phantoms tested versus screen-film mammography. The phantom performance of a digital mammography unit seems to be influenced by the type of detection task (line-pair resolution versus object visibility), the display modality (soft-copy versus hard-copy) chosen to score the phantoms, and the parenchymal pattern composition of the phantom.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1995

The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA).

The medical audit of a mammography practice is a recognized method for evaluating mammography and the accuracy of mammographic interpretation [1-4]. As such, portions of the audit will become integral to the quality assurance activities of every mammography practice under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992, administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA Interim Rules, which became effective October 1, 1994, state that "each facility shall establish a system for reviewing outcome data from all mammography performed, including follow-up on the disposition of positive mammograms and correlation of surgical biopsy results with mammogram reports" [5]. It is expected that the proposed final rules, due to be released for public comment in 1995, will require collection of additional data for medical audits (public meeting of the National Mammography Advisory Committee, May 3, 1994). Although most mammography practices are now collecting clinical outcomes data on abnormal mammographic examinations, very few have established an organized and deliberate system of data collection necessary for a more complete mammography audit [6]. A detailed discussion of and recommendations for such an audit were recently published as part of the Quality Determinants of Mammography Guideline by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR) [7]. As members and consultants on the multidisciplinary panel that produced the guideline, we offer the following review of the various elements, definitions, and processes of the mammography audit. This is intended as a primer for all radiologists who will be performing some of the same audit activities for the MQSA.

Female↗