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 Abstract Freely available
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

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

A Fischmann, MD 1 K C Siegmann, MD 1 A Wersebe, MD 1 C D Claussen, MD 1 and M Müller-Schimpfle, MD 1,2

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



View larger version (86K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Caudocranial-exposures, left film–screen mammography, right full-field digital mammography. Better depiction of m. pectoralis right and nipple.

 


View larger version (117K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Caudocranial-exposures, left full-field digital mammography (FFDM), right film–screen mammography (FSM). Clearly recognizably better depiction of skin and nipple-areola region FFDM. Breast parenchyma was rated to be less dense with FFDM.

 




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