BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 312-315
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/33317317

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fischmann, A
Right arrow Articles by Müller-Schimpfle, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fischmann, A
Right arrow Articles by Müller-Schimpfle, M

Full Paper

Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film–screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection

A Fischmann, MD1, K C Siegmann, MD1, A Wersebe, MD1, C D Claussen, MD1 and M Müller-Schimpfle, MD1,2

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076 Tübingen and 2 Städtische Kliniken Frankfurt/Main, Central Institute of Radiology, Germany

The objective of this study is to compare image quality and lesion detection for full field digital mammography (FFDM) and film–screen mammography (FSM). In 200 women we performed digital mammography of one breast and film–screen mammography of the other breast. Imaging parameters were set automatically. Image quality, visualization of calcifications and masses were rated by three readers independently. Mean glandular dose was calculated for both systems. We found no significant difference in mean glandular dose. Image quality was rated by reader A/B/C as excellent for FFDM in 153/155/167 cases and for FSM in 139/116/114 cases (p<0.03/0.001/0.001). Microcalcifications were detected by FFDM in 103/89/98 and by FSM in 76/76/76 cases (p<0.01/0.06/0.01). Detection of masses did not differ significantly. FFDM provided significantly better visibility of skin and nipple-areola region (p<0.01). FFDM demonstrated improved image quality compared with film–screen mammography. Microcalcification detection was also significantly better with the digital mammography system for two of the three readers.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
BJR Review of the Year - 2005.
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 183 - 187.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. B. Wolbarst and W. R. Hendee
Evolving and Experimental Technologies in Medical Imaging
Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 16 - 39.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.