Abstract
The object of this study was to compare of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) workstation
and conventional picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) in image quality
and diagnostic performance. We assembled 80 masses and 80 microcalcifications. Images
were displayed on workstation, 5M, and 3M PACS monitors. The image quality for mammograms
on workstation was significantly better than that for mammograms on PACS monitors.
The sensitivity and NPV for microcalcifications on workstation were higher than those
on PACS monitors. The conventional PACS cannot substitute for a FFDM workstation for
mammographic evaluation.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986; 146: 661-663
- Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study.Radiology. 2005; 237: 37-44
- 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
Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/mammographyqualitystandardsactandprogram. Published January 16, 2009. Updated September 1, 2009. Accessed September 14, 2009.
- Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.Acta Radiol. 2007; 48: 714-720
- Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.Radiology. 2009; 251: 41-49
- Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 2363-2369
- Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.Eur Radiol. 2007; 17: 1365-1371
- 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
- Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—observer performance study.Radiology. 2005; 237: 37-44
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.Radiology. 2008; 246: 376-383
- Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.Radiology. 2002; 223: 483-488
- Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.Radiology. 2001; 218: 873-880
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 15, 2010
Accepted:
August 20,
2010
Received:
July 15,
2010
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
