Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study

References

• Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC handbook of cancer prevention. Volume 7. Breast cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002 (http://www.iarc.fr).
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish organized service screening evaluation group. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from the organised service screening with mammography: 2. Validation with alternative analytic methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:52–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gabe R, Duffy SW. Evaluation of service screening mammography in practice: the impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncol 2005;16:153–62.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, . 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, . 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 and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877–84.
   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, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, . 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, 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 the Oslo-II study. Radiology 2007;244:708–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson ANA, Fryback DG, . 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, . 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, . 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
• Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Cole EB, Marques HS, Yaffe MJ, Blevins M, . Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model. Radiology 2009; 252:348–57.
   Google Scholar
• Heddson B, Rönnow 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
• 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
• Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, . 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
• Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, dos Santos Silva IM. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009;251:347–58.
   Google Scholar
• Sala M, Comas M, Macià F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 2009;252:31–9.
   Google Scholar
• Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijrinck D, Deurenberg J, Beekman M, Visser R, . Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009;253: 353–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1010–18.
   Google Scholar
• Åslund M, Cederström B, Lundqvist M, Danielsson M. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography. Med Phys 2006;33:933–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22:447–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dance DR, Thilander-Klang A, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano Smith IA, Alm Carlsson G. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1056–67.
   Google Scholar
• D'Orsi C, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig SA, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, . Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Mammography. Fourth. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009;50:3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, . Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679–83.
   Google Scholar
• Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2188–91.
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, . 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
• Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ, Murphy WA Jr, Dryden MJ, Kushwaha AC, . Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:576–81.
   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
• 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
• Sankararaman S, Karellas A, Vendantham S, Sechopoulos I, D'Orsi CJ. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect on pixel size. Radiology 2007;244:130–7.
   Google Scholar
• Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG, Jong RA. Technical developments in mammography. Health Phys 2008;95:599–611.
   Google Scholar
• Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, Seibert JA, Kwan A, Lo JY, . Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography. Med Phys 2008;35:2414–23.
   Google Scholar