Studies Comparing Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Review

References

• Bick U, Diekmann F. Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1931–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 38–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 2559–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N, Sahiner B, Adler DD, Paramagul C, et al. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 454–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F. Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography [in German]. Rofo 2003; 175: 775–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2679–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Jiroutek MR, Muller KE, Zheng Y, et al. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 47–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krug KB, Stutzer H, Girnus R, Zahringer M, Gossmann A, Winnekendonk G, et al. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 399–407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1697–702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Riordan E, Bukhanov K, Wilson C, Sidlofsky S, Goldberg F, Muradali D. Detection and characterization of microcalcification with film-screen and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Radiology 2000; 217(P): 200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Sechopoulos I, D'Orsi CJ. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size. Radiology 2007; 244: 130–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning P, Kim HH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 879–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 312–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Ciatto S, Gentile E, Lazzari B, Mantellini P, et al. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 258–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Marten K, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Skaane P, et al. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 2003; 16: 341–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223: 483–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzmiak CM, Koomen M, Pavic D, McLelland R, et al. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer: full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population. Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 1229–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – observer performance study. Radiology 2005; 237: 37–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, et al. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 1241–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada T, Saito M, Ishibashi T, Tsuboi M, Matsuhashi T, Sato A, et al. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. Radiat Med 2004; 22: 408–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, Glasziou P. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 2006; 332: 678–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218: 873–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 671–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: the Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229: 877–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, et al. 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 2005; 46: 679–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Skjennald A. 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 2004; 232: 197–204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson ANA, Fryback DG, et al. American College of Radiology imaging network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005; 236: 404–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246: 376–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials. Semin Roentgenol 2007; 42: 236–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crystal P, Strano S. Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 765–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Marques H, Cohen MA, et al. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology 2008; 247: 38–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heddson B, Roennow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 419–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 860–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 183–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, Frantzen JO. Full-field digital mammography screening in the population-based screening program in North-Norway: preliminary results. Radiology 2006; 241(P): 392
   Google Scholar
• Perry NM, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Vinnicombe SJ, Shiel S, dos Santos Silva II. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with conventional screen-film mammography within a population-based breast screening program. Radiology 2007; 245(P): 382
   Google Scholar
• Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, Deurenberg J, Beekman M, Bartels-Kortland A. Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening program. Eur Radiol 2008; Suppl 1: 151–2
   Google Scholar
• Lewin J. Clinical trials in full-field digital mammography. Semin Breast Dis 2006; 9: 87–91
   Google Scholar
• Gur D. Technology and practice assessment: in search of a “desirable” statement. Radiology 2005; 234: 659–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gur D. Digital mammography: do we need to convert now?. Radiology 2007; 245: 10–1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keen JD. Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 766
   Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe M, Conant EF, Gatsonis C. Should breast imaging practices convert to digital mammography? A response from members of the DMIST executive committee. Radiology 2007; 245: 12–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dershaw DD. Film or digital mammographic screening?. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1846–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Niklason L. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a proper measurement for performance in breast cancer screening?. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 579–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1769–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1493–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Diekmann F, Balleyguier C, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, et al. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1134–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glueck DH, Lamb MM, Lewin JM, Pisano ED. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 670–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothenberg BM, Ziegler KM, Aronson N. Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Synopsis: full-field digital mammography. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: 586–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kopans DB. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability?. Radiology 2008; 248: 703–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, Sisney GA. The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 790–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 38–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Riordan E, Bukhanov K, Muradali D, Goldberg F. A comparison of reporting times for analog vs digital mammography. Radiology 2000; 217(P): 200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solari M, Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Wolfman JA, Willis W, Segal L, et al. Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2004;182 Suppl:11.
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino DA. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 377–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisano ED, Zuley M, Baum JK, Marques HS. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 2007; 45: 813–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dershaw DD. Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 2006; 12: 99–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciatto S, Brancato B, Baglioni R, Turci M. A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57: 69–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosteson ANA, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 1–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wacker T, Bautz W. Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographie. Radiologe 2008; 48: 324–34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar