AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yang, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yang, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, C. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.0126
AJR 2006; 187:W576-W581
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography for Detection and Characterization of Simulated Small Masses

Wei T. Yang1, Chao-Jen Lai1, Gary J. Whitman1, William A. Murphy, Jr.1, Mark J. Dryden1, Anne C. Kushwaha1, Aysegul A. Sahin1, Dennis Johnston1, Peter J. Dempsey1 and Chris C. Shaw1

1 All authors: Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 57, Houston, TX 77030.

OBJECTIVE. The two objectives of this study were to create an ex vivo phantom model that closely mimics human breast cancer for detection tasks and to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography in detecting and characterizing small breast masses in a phantom with a spectrum of complex tissue backgrounds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixteen phantom breast masses of varying sizes (0.3-1.2 cm), shapes (round and irregular), and densities (high and low) were created from shaved tumor specimens and imaged using both full-field digital and screen-film mammography techniques. We created 408 detection tasks that were captured on 68 films. On each radiograph, six detection tasks were partially obscured by areas of varying breast-pattern complexity, including low (predominantly fatty), mixed (scattered fibroglandular densities and heterogeneously dense), and high (extremely dense) density patterns. Each detection task was scored using a five-point confidence scale by three mammographers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to analyze differences in detection of masses between the two imaging systems, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were computed.

RESULTS. Full-field digital mammography showed higher area under the ROC curve than screen-film mammography for detecting masses in each breast background and performed significantly better than screen-film mammography in mixed (p = 0.010), dense (p = 0.029), and all breast backgrounds combined (p = 0.004). Full-field digital mammography was superior to screen-film mammography for characterizing round and irregular masses and low- and high-density masses.

CONCLUSION. Full-field digital mammography was significantly superior to screen-film technique for detecting and characterizing small masses in mixed and dense breast backgrounds in a phantom model.

Keywords: breast neoplasms • breast radiography • digital radiography • phantoms


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.