Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:42:35.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Preparing digital mammography images for interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Gary J. Whitman
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Tamara Milner Haygood
Affiliation:
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Get access

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
Digital Mammography
A Practical Approach
, pp. 22 - 26
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shtern, F.Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183: 629–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byng, JW, Critten, JP, Yaffe, MJ.Thickness equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 1997; 203: 564–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bick, U, Giger, ML, Schmidt, RA, Nishikawa, RM, Doi, K.Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Radiographics 1996; 16: 403–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pisano, ED, Cole, EB, Hemminger, BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2000; 20: 1479–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, E., Krupinsky, E, Samei, E, et al. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3: 615–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×