Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mammographic Signs of Malignancy: Impact of Digital Mammography on Visibility and Appearance

  • Chapter
Digital Mammography

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

  • 2671 Accesses

Key Points

The two main aspects affecting lesion visibility in digital mammography are image noise and image processing. A high amount of noise in low-dose mammographic images adversely affects detection of subtle microcalcifications and characterization of mass lesions, but not mass detection in general. Using a higher energy spectrum for digital mam-mograms while keeping the mean glandular dose constant will lead to a reduction in the image noise and thus to an improved visibility of small micro-calcifications, which are in a similar size range as the individual image pixels.

Tailored image processing with improved contrast in areas of dense breast parenchyma is probably the main reason behind the improved sensitivity of digital mammography in women with dense breasts. However, processing algorithms that try to equalize the range of signal intensities throughout the breast may also reduce the contrast and with this the visibility of subtle mass lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American College of Radiology A (2003) ACR BI-RADS®. Breast imaging and reporting data system, breast imaging atlas. Mammography, breast ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassett LW (1992) Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 30(1):93–105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt P, Mertelmeier T, Hoheisel M (2006) X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Med Phys 33:4337–4349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2003) Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. Med Phys 30:334–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bick U, Giger ML, Schmidt RA, et al (1995) Automated segmentation of digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol 2:1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Byng JW, Critten J P, Yaffe MJ (1997) Thickness-equalization processing for mammographic images. Radiology 203:564–568

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D, et al (2005) The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 12:585–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen AR, Launders JH, Jadav M, et al (1997) Visibility of microcalcifications in computed and screen-film mam-mography. Phys Med Biol 42:1533–1548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR 189:860–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grosjean B, Muller S (2006) Impact of textured background on scoring of simulated CDMAM phantom. In: Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, Zwiggelaar R (eds) Digital mammogra-phy proceedings of the IWDM 2006, LNCS 4046. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 460–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, et al (2003) Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Med Phys 30:442–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karssemeijer N, Frieling JTM, Hendriks JHCL (1993) Spatial resolution in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 28:413–419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, et al (2009) Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mam-mography? Eur Radiol 19:310–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsees BS (1995) Evaluation of breast microcalcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1109–1121

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al (2000) Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruschin M, Timberg P, Bath M, et al (2007) Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammog-raphy: free response human observer studies. Med Phys 34:400–4007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Samei E, Saunders RS, Jr., Baker JA, et al (2007) Digital mam-mography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology 243:396–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders RS, Jr., Baker JA, Delong DM, et al (2007) Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mam-mographic task performance. Med Phys 34:3971–3981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA (1986) Breast calcifications: mammographic evaluation. Radiology 160:289–293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sickles EA (2007) The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management.Radiol Clin North Am 45:765–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, et al (2000) Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. AJR 175:45–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanoyiannis AP, Costaridou L, Skiadopoulos S, et al (2003) A digital equalisation technique improving visualisation of dense mammary gland and breast periphery in mammog-raphy. Eur J Radiol 45:139–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tse GM, Tan PH, Pang AL, et al (2008) Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists' perspective J Clin Pathol 61:145–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, et al (2008) 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 18:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigel S, Girnus R, Czwoydzinski J, et al (2007) Digital mam-mography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters. Fortschr Röntgenstr 179:892–825

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, CCM, Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany

    Ulrich Bick

Authors
  1. Ulrich Bick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Charité Campus Mitte Institut för Radiologie, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany

    U. Bick

  2. Charité Klinik för Strahlenheilkunde, Augustenburger Platz 1, Berlin, 13353, Germany

    F. Diekmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bick, U. (2010). Mammographic Signs of Malignancy: Impact of Digital Mammography on Visibility and Appearance. In: Bick, U., Diekmann, F. (eds) Digital Mammography. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78450-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78450-0_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78449-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78450-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation