Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: December 2012

Chapter 3 - Preparing digital mammography images for interpretation

Summary

Introduction

The basic advantages and disadvantages of digital mammography and the relevant technology are discussed in other chapters of this book. Results of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), released in September 2005, show that digital mammography may be more accurate at detecting breast cancer in some women than standard film-screen mammography [1,2]. In that study, digital and standard film-screen mammography had similar accuracy for many women. However, digital mammography was significantly better at screening women younger than 50 years, regardless of their breast tissue density, and women of any age with very dense or extremely dense breasts. In this context, the significant advantages of digital mammography for image interpretation include the following:

physician manipulation of breast images for more accurate detection of breast cancer

ability to correct underexposure or overexposure of images without having to repeat the mammogram

transmittal of images over a network for remote consultation with other physicians

The primary focus of this chapter is post-processing of raw digital mammography images for interpretation, including digital mammography display, and comparison with prior mammography studies, including analog (film-screen or digitized) mammography studies.

References
Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, C, Hendrick, E, et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773–83.
Pisano, ED, Gatsonis, CA, Yaffe, MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005; 236: 404–12.
Shtern, F.Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183: 629–30.
Chan, HP, Vyborny, CJ, MacMahon, H, et al. Digital mammography ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 581–9.
Byng, JW, Critten, JP, Yaffe, MJ.Thickness equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 1997; 203: 564–8.
Bick, U, Giger, ML, Schmidt, RA, Nishikawa, RM, Doi, K.Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics 1996; 16: 403–11.
Ayyala, RS, Chorlton, M, Behrman, RH, Kornguth, PJ, Slanetz, PJ.Digital mammographic artifacts on full field systems: what are they and how do I fix them?Radiographics 2008; 28: 1999–2008.
Pisano, ED, Zong, S, Hemminger, BM, et al. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 1998; 11: 193–200.
Pisano, ED, Cole, EB, Hemminger, BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2000; 20: 1479–91.
Siegel, E., Krupinsky, E, Samei, E, et al. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: 615–27.