Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High-quality full-field digital mammography has been available now for several years and is increasingly used for both diagnostic and screening mammography. A number of different detector technologies exist, which all have their specific advantages and disadvantages. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography has been shown to be at least equivalent to film-screen mammography in a general screening population. Digital mammography is superior to screen-film mammography in younger women with dense breasts due to its ability to selectively optimize contrast in areas of dense parenchyma. This advantage is especially important in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, where intensified early detection programs may have to start from 25 to 30 years of age. Tailored image processing and computer-aided diagnosis hold the potential to further improve the early detection of breast cancer. However, at present no consensus exists among radiologists on which processing is optimal for digital mammograms. Image processing may also vary significantly among vendors with so far limited interoperability. This review aims to summarize the available information regarding the impact of digital mammography on workflow and breast cancer diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winsberg F, Elkin M, Macy J, Bordaz V, Weymouth W (1967) Detection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis. Radiology 89:211–215

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cowen AR, Parkin GJS, Hawkridge P (1997) Direct digital mammography image acquisition. Eur Radiol 7:918–930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kheddache S, Thilander-Klang A, Lanhede B, Mansson LG, Bjurstam N, Ackerholm P, Björneld L (1999) Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques. Eur Radiol 9:591–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bick U (2000) Full-field digital mammography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 172:957–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2005) Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) Mammography. Information for mammography facility personnel, inspectors, and consumers about the implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). Last accessed on 25.9.2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/CDRH/mammography/

  8. Maidment AD (2003) Digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol 38:216–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahesh M (2004) AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 24:1747–1760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR (2003) Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 30:442–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mahesh M, Nickoloff EL, Fleischman RC, Williams MB, Maidment AD, Beideck DJ, Och J, Seibert JA (2006) Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 33:719–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, Puhaar E (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

    Google Scholar 

  15. Young KC, Cook JJH, Oduko JM (2006) Automated and human determination of threshold contrast for digital mammography systems. In: Astley SM, Brday M, Rose C, Zwiggelaar R (eds) Digital mammography. Proceedings of the IWDM 2006, LNCS 4046. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp 266–272

  16. Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gosch D, Jendrass S, Scholz M, Kahn T (2006) Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector. Fortschr Röntgenstr 178:693–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Marten K, Kehbel S, Fischer U, Grabbe E (2002) Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography-clinical results. Fortschr Röntgenstr 174:696–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Marshall NW (2006) A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Phys Med Biol 51:2441–2463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bosmans H, Carton AK, Rogge F, Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C, Nijs K, Van Steen A, Marchal G (2005) Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 117:120–130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bick U, Diekmann F, Grebe S, Marth F, Juran R, Friedrich M, Hamm B (2001) Contrast-detail resolution of dull-field digital mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography. In: Yaffe M (ed) IWDM 2000. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison: Medical Physics Publishing, pp 627–632

  22. Grosjean B, Muller S (2006) Impact of textured background on scoring of simulated CDMAM phantom. In: Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, Zwiggelaar R (eds) Digital mammography. Proceedings of the IWDM 2006, LNCS 4046. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp 460–467

  23. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF (2001) Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kotre CJ (1998) The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography. Br J Radiol 71:1162–1167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Bick U, Hamm B (2002) Reduced-dose digital mammography of skin calcifications. AJR 178:473–474

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Riedl CC, Jaromi S, Floery D, Pfarl G, Fuchsjaeger MH, Helbich TH (2005) Potential of dose reduction after marker placement with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol 40:343–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, Muller S, Hamm B, Bick U (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40:397–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dobbins JT, 3rd, Godfrey DJ (2003) Digital X-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 48:R65–R106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, Hunter DM, Beideck DJ (2006) Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system. Med Phys 33:2998–3005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Couwenhoven M, William Sehnert W, Wang X, Dupin M, Wandtke J, Don S, Kraus R, Paul N, Halin N, Sarno N (2005) Observer study of a noise suppression algorithm for computed radiography images. Proc SPIE 5749:318–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Kutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873—880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR 179:671–677

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, Scheel B, Sovik E, Ertzaas AK, Hofvind S, Abdelnoor M (2005) Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol 46:679–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) 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 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Bassett LW, Baum JK, Conant EF, Jong RA, Rebner M, D’Orsi CJ (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A, Cutter G (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR 176:1241–1248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, Botkin J, Kahn MJ, Lynch P, McTiernan A, Offit K, Perlman J, Petersen G, Thomson E, Varricchio C (1997) Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 277:997–1003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman D, Hylton N, Warner E, Pisano E, Schnitt SJ, Gatsonis C, Schnall M, DeAngelis GA, Stomper P, Rosen EL, O’Loughlin M, Harms S, Bluemke DA (2005) Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH, Thijssen MA, Nab HW (1997) Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 70:34–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Andersson I, Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Grahn A, Tingberg A (2005) Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 114:415–423

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ideguchi T, Higashida Y, Kawaji Y, Sasaki M, Zaizen M, Shibayama R, Nakamura Y, Koyanagi K, Ikeda H, Ohki M, Toyofuku F, Muranaka T (2004) New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications. Radiat Med 22:218–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N, Sahiner B, Adler DD, Paramagul C, Roubidoux MA, Blane CE, Joynt LK, Wilson TE, Hadjiiski LM, Goodsitt MM (2001) Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 8:454–466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Jiroutek MR, Muller KE, Zheng Y, Kuzmiak CM, Koomen MA (2006) Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR 187:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F (2003) Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 175:775–779

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Karssemeijer N, Frieling JTM, Hendriks JHCL (1993) Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 28:413–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Crystal P, Strano S (2006) Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 354:765–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dershaw DD (2005) Film or digital mammographic screening? N Engl J Med 353:1846–1847

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2002) Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming Radiologe 42:261–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, Segal L, DeLeon P, Benjamin S, Willis L (2006) Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR 187:38–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ciatto S, Brancato B, Baglioni R, Turci M (2006) A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 57:69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD, Hendriks JH, Bodicker A, Evertsz CJ, Karssemeijer N (2006) Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol 16:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Malich A, Fischer DR, Bottcher J (2006) CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol 16:1449–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bick U, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, Nishikawa RM, Doi K (1996) Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics 16:1403–1411

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Byng JW, Critten JP, Yaffe MJ (1997) Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 203:564–568

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, Zong S, Hemminger BM, Muller KE, Johnston RE, Walsh R, Conant E, Fajardo LL, Feig SA, Nishikawa RM, Yaffe MJ, Williams MB, Aylward SR (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Baum F, Fischer U, Obenauer S, Grabbe E (2002) Computer-aided detection in direct digital full-field mammography: initial results. Eur Radiol 12:3015–3017

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Astley SM (2004) Computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 11:1139–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM (2005) Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 236:451–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC (2005) Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR 185:944–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Roehrig J (2005) The manufacturer’s perspective. Br J Radiol 78:S41–S45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA (2000) Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Ulrich Bick & Felix Diekmann

Authors
  1. Ulrich Bick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Diekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Bick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bick, U., Diekmann, F. Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?. Eur Radiol 17, 1931–1942 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0586-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0586-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation