Digitale Vollfeldmammographie

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung.

Aufgrund der extrem hohen Anforderungen an die Bildqualität in der Mammographie gab es lange Zeit keine adäquate digitale Alternative zur konventionellen Film-Folien-Mammographie. Die längste Erfahrung existiert bisher mit der digitalen Mammographie auf Speicherfolienbasis. Diese Technik weist jedoch bei normaler Dosis ein relativ schlechtes Signal-zu-Rausch-Verhältnis auf und konnte sich nicht allgemein durchsetzen. Seit kurzem befinden sich drei neuartige Systeme zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie von den Firmen Fischer (Schlitzdetektor), Trex (CCD-Mosaik) und GE (amorpher Silizium Detektor) in der klinischen Erprobung.

Der entscheidende Vorteil der digitalen Mammographie ist die lineare Beziehung zwischen Dosis und Detektorsignal und die damit verbundene Möglichkeit der gezielten Optimierung des Bildkontrastes. Darüber hinaus eröffnet sich durch die digitale Mammographie eine Reihe weiterer Möglichkeiten wie digitale Bildspeicherung, Telemammographie und computer-assistierte Diagnose.

Full-field digital mammography.

Due to the extremely high image quality requirements in mammography, there has for a long time been no adequate digital alternative to conventional film-screen mammography. The longest experience so far exists with digital mammography on the basis of storage phosphor (CR) systems. However, at normal dose this technique has a relatively poor signal-to-noise ratio and has not found general acceptance. Recently three novel systems for digital mammography by the companies Fischer (slot-scan detector), Trex (CCD-array), and GE (amorphous silicon detector) have been introduced and are currently under clinical investigation.

The main advantage of digital mammography is the linear relationship between dose and detector signal with the possibility of a tailored optimization of image contrast. Other advantages include digital image storage, telemammography, and computer-assisted diagnosis.

Literatur

• 1 Inamura K, Takahashi T. Storage and presentation of images.  Int J Biomed Comput. 1995;  39 157-162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Lindhardt F E. Clinical experiences with computed radiography.  Eur Radiol. 1996;  22 175-185
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bauman R A, Gell G, Dwyer S J3rd. Large picture archiving and communication systems of the world - Part 1.  J Digit Imaging. 1996;  9 99-103
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pisano E D. Current status of full-field digital mammography.  Radiology. 2000;  214 26-28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Feig S A, Yaffe M J. Current status of digital mammography.  Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1996;  17 424-443
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Williams M B, Fajardo L L. Digital mammography: performance considerations and current detector designs.  Acad Radiol. 1996;  3 429-437
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Critten J P, Emde K A, Mawdsley G E, Yaffe M J. Digital mammography image correction and evaluation. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) Digital Mammography '96.  Amsterdam; Elsevier Science 1996: 455-458
  Google Scholar
• 8 Chan H-P, Vyborny C J, MacMahon H, Metz C E, Doi K, Sickles E A. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.  Invest Radiol. 1987;  22 581-589
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Feig S A, Yaffe M J. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.  Radiol Clin North Am. 1995;  33 (6) 1205-1230
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Rosol M S, Niklason L T, Venkatakrishan V, Silvenoinnen H, Kopans D B, Hamberg L M. Contrast-detail comparison of a full-field digital mammography system and a screen-film system.  Radiology. 1999;  213P 151
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Diekmann F, Bick U, Grebe S D, Marth F, Juran R, Friedrich M, Hamm B. Contrast-detail resolution of full-field digital mammography in comparison with conventional film-screen mammography.  Eur Radiol. 2000;  10 (1) 117
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Gingold E L, Wu X, Barnes G T. Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.  Radiology. 1995;  195 639-644
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Nab H W, Karssemeijer N, van Erning L JTHO, Hendriks J HCL. Comparison of digital and conventional mammograph: a ROC study of 270 mammograms.  Med Inform. 1992;  17 125-131
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Karssemeijer N, Frieling J TM, Hendriks J HCL. Spatial resolution in digital mammography.  Invest Radiol. 1993;  28 413-419
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Bick U, Diekmann F, Grebe S D, Hamm B. Full-field digital mammography: first clinical experiences.  Eur Radiol. 2000;  10 (1) 116
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Cowen A R, Parkin G JS, Hawkridge P. Direct digital mammography image acquisition.  Eur Radiol. 1997;  7 918-930
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Jarlman O, Samuelsson L, Braw M. Digital luminescence mammography. Early clinical experience.  Acta Radiol. 1991;  32 110-113
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Nawano S. Evaluation of digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer.  J Digit Imaging. 1995;  8 67
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Brettle D S, Ward S C, Parkin G JS, Cowen A R, Sumsion H J. A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography.  Br J Radiol. 1994;  67 464-468
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Schönhofen H, Arnold W, Hess T, Allgayer B. Digitale Mammographie: Erfahrungen bei klinischer Anwendung.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1998;  169 45-52
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Higashida Y, Moribe N, Morita K, Katsuda N, Hatemura M, Takada T, Takahashi M, Yamashita J. Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography.  Radiology. 1992;  183 483-486
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Kheddache S, Thilander-Klang A, Lanhede B, Mansson L G, Bjurstam N, Ackerholm P, Björneld L. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.  Eur Radiol. 1999;  9 591-597
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Oestmann J W, Kopans D, Hall D A, McCarthy K A, Rubens J R, Greene R. A comparison of digitized storage phosphors and conventional mammogrpahy in the detection of malignant microcalcifications.  Invest Radiol. 1988;  23 725-728
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Yaffe M J, Rowlands J A. X-ray detectors for digital radiography.  Phys Med Biol. 1997;  42 1-39
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Yaffe M J. Direct digital mammography using a scanned-slot CCD imaging system.  Med Prog Technol. 1993;  19 13-21
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Feig S A, Yaffe M J, Plewes D B, Maidment A DA, Piccaro M F, Tesic M, Mawdsley G E, Critten J P. Clinical evaluation of a scanned-slot, full-field digital mammography system. In: Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA (eds) Digital Mammography '96.  Amsterdam; Elsevier Science 1996: 71-79
  Google Scholar
• 27 Nishikawa R M, Mawdsley G E, Fenster A, Yaffe M J. Scanned-projection digital mammography.  Med Phys. 1987;  14 717-727
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Boyle E R, Pak D, Williams J B. Motion artifact seen on slot-scanning direct digital mammography.  Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 697-701
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Jalink A, McAdoo J, Halama G, Liu H. CCD mosaic technique for large area mammography.  IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1996;  15 260-267
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Cheung L, Bird R, Chitkara A, Rego A, Rodriguez C, Yuen J. Initial operating and clinical results of a full field mammography system. In: Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hemdriks J, van Erning L (eds) Digital Mammography. Dordrecht; Kluwer 1998: 11-18
  Google Scholar
• 31 Muller S. Full-field digital mammography designed as a complete system.  Eur J Radiol. 1999;  31 25-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Rowlands J A, Hunter D M, Araj N. X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: detective quantum efficiency of photoconductive receptors for digital mammography.  Med Phys. 1991;  18 421-431
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Fahrig R, Rowlands J A, Yaffe M J. X-ray imaging with amorphous selenium: detective quantum efficiency of photoconductive receptors for digital mammography.  Med Phys. 1995;  22 153-160
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Lewin J M. Full-field digital mammography.  Diagnostic Imaging. 1999;  September 40-45
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Funke M, Netsch T, Breiter N, Biehl M, Peitgen H O, Grabbe E. Computergestützte Visualisierung digitaler Mammogramme.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1999;  171 359-363
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Shile P E, Ramanurthy V. Performance issues in the softcopy display of mammograms.  Radiology. 1999;  213P 151
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Blume H, Roehrig H, Browne M, Ji T L. Comparison of the physical performance of high resolution CRT displays and films recorded by laser image printers and displayed on light-boxes and the need for a display standard.  Proc SPIE. 1990;  1232 97-114
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Maitz G S, Chang T S, Sumkin J H, Wintz P W, Johns C M, Gannott M, Holbert B L, Hakim C M, Harris K M, Gur D, Herron J M. Preliminary clinical evaluation of a high-resolution telemammography system.  Invest Radiol. 1997;  32 236-240
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Thurfjell E L, Lernevall K A, Taube A AS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.  Radiology. 1994;  191 241-244
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Pisano E D, Chandramouli J, Hemminger B M, Johnston R E, Muller K, Pizer S. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting.  J Digit Imaging. 1997;  10 174-182
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Pisano E D, Chandramouli J, Hemminger B M, DeLuca M, Glueck D, Johnston R E, Muller K, Braeuning M P, Pizer S. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms?.  J Digit Imaging. 1997;  10 79-84
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Metz C E, Chan H-P, Doi K, Shen J-H. Contrast enhancement of noisy images by windowing: Limitations due to the finite dynamic range of the display system.  Med Phys. 1989;  16 170-178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Pisano E D, Zong S, Hemmiger B M, DeLuca M, Johnston R E, Muller K, Braeuning M P, Pizer S. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms.  J Digit Imaging. 1998;  11 193-200
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Bick U, Giger M L, Schmidt R A, Nishikawa R M, Wolverton D E, Doi K. Automated segmentation of digitized mammograms.  Acad Radiol. 1995;  2 1-9
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Bick U, Giger M L, Schmidt R A, Nishikawa R M, Doi K. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms.  Radiographics. 1996;  16 1403-1411
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Byng J W, Critten J P, Yaffe M J. Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images.  Radiology. 1997;  203 564-568
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Bick U. Computerassistierte Diagnose in der Screeningmammographie.  Radiologe. 1996;  36 72-80
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Karssemeijer N, Hendriks J HCL. Computer-assisted reading of mammograms.  Eur Radiol. 1997;  7 743-748
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Nawano S, Murakami K, Moriyama N, Kobatake H, Takeo H, Shimura K. Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography.  Invest Radiol. 1999;  34 310-316
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Nishikawa R M, Giger M L, Yarusso L M, Kupinski M A, Baehr A E, Venta L A, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of images obtained on full-field digital mammography.  Radiology. 1999;  213P 229
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

Priv. Doz. Dr. med. Ulrich Bick

Associate Professor of Radiology Department of Radiology MC 2026 The University of Chicago

5841 South Maryland Avenue

Chicago, IL 60637

USA

Phone: + 1-773-702-6200

Fax: + 1-773-702-1161

Email: u-bick@uchicago.edu