AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krug, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Lackner, K.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krug, K. B.
Right arrow Articles by Lackner, K.
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.07.2870
AJR 2008; 191:W80-W88
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast Phantom

Kathrin Barbara Krug1, Hartmut Stützer2, René Schröder1, Julia Boecker1, Jörg Poggenborg1 and Klaus Lackner1

1 Department of Radiology, University of Cologne Medical School, Kerpenerstraße 62, Cologne NRW 50924, Germany.
2 Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare the detectability and distinguishability of simulated soft-tissue opacities of 50 variants of an anthropomorphic breast phantom in mammograms acquired with a digital direct flat-panel detector versus an analog system; we also compared the image settings "analog film," "digital film," and "digital monitor."

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The studies were performed on digital (Lorad Selenia) and analog (Mammomat 3) mammography systems. Four hundred fifty silicone cubes devised with different randomly distributed columns, holes, or both columns and holes (diameter, 3–7 mm; height, 0.5–4.0 mm) were used as test bodies. One experimental series was performed with a silicone scatter body and one with a silicone and an anthropomorphic ground-meat scatter body. All x-rays were obtained at identical settings and exposures. Four radiologists rated the films and monitor-displayed images independently of each other in randomized order on a standardized electronic questionnaire.

RESULTS. The digital monitor technique generally scored better than digital film viewing and analog readings. The McNemar test for multiple paired comparisons mostly yielded a p value of < 0.0005. The smallest volume category counted as the most valid test scenario for all raters, where the percentage of correct positive findings ranged between 30% and 58% (analog technique), 43% and 68% (digital film viewing), and 55% and 66% (monitor viewing). The corresponding accuracy rates were 77–93%, 75–95%, and 81–85%, respectively, with kappa values of 0.2–0.5 (analog) and 0.3–0.6 (digital) for comparing the gold standard with raters' evaluations.

CONCLUSION. Digital flat-panel mammography is superior to the analog screen-film method for the detection of simulated opacities.

Keywords: breast cancer screening • digital flat-panel mammography • mammography • screen-film imaging


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 © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.