Full-Field Digital Mammography

  • Euclid Seeram


Mammography is defined as radiography of the breast. Digital mammography (DM) or full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has become commonplace in medical imaging departments. FFDM overcomes the limitations of film-screen mammography (FSM). Two major limitations include a limited dynamic range, and that the display characteristics such as brightness and contrast are fixed due to the chemical processing of the film. FFDM is radiography of the breast using a digital detector coupled to a digital computer that makes use of digital image processing techniques to enhance the visibility of detail and contrast of the image, in an effort to improve the detectability of breast lesions. FFDM consists of five steps which includes data acquisition, analog-to-digital conversion (ADC), digital image processing, image display, image storage, archiving, and communications via the picture archiving and communications system (PACS). Four types of digital detector systems are used for FFDM: flat-panel phosphor system, charge-coupled device (CCD) system, Flat-Panel amorphous Selenium (a-Se) System, and a computed radiography (CR) FFDM system. Detectors for FFDM must be capable of providing a spatial resolution of at least 10 line pairs/mm (lp/mm) to improve lesion detectability. Another performance characteristic of a FFDM detector is the detective quantum efficiency (DQE), which provides an indication of how well the FFDM imaging system can efficiently transfer the input signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (at the detector) to the output SNR (image displayed on the monitor) so that it is useful to the observer in making a diagnosis. Digital image processing is an essential feature of FFDM and include operations such as windowing, measurement and annotation tools, as well as various sophisticated digital post-processing techniques, such as frequency processing for enhancing the sharpness of an image as well as manual intensity windowing (MIW), histogram-based intensity windowing (HIW), mixture-model intensity windowing (HMIW), contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE), unsharp masking, and peripheral equalization. Applications of FFDM include computer-aided detection and diagnosis, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. DBT is also referred to as three-dimensional (3D) mammography and is a relatively new technique which has increased attention in the literature.


  1. 1.
    Bushong S. Radiologic science for technologists. 11th ed. St Louis: Elsevier-Mosby; 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum J, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahesh M. Digital mammography-physics tutorial for residents. Radiographics. 2004;24:1747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pisano E. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000;214:26–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    James JJ. The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2004;59:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005;234:353–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samei E. Technological and psychological considerations for digital mammography displays. Radiographics. 2005;25:491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seeram E, Seeram D. Image postprocessing in digital radiology: a primer for technologists. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2008;39(1):23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pisano E, Yaffe MJ, Kuzmiak CM. Digital mammography. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pisano E, Cole E, Hemminger B, Yafee M, Aylward S, Maidment A, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 2000;20:1479–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Digital Tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52:489–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patterson SK, Roubidoux MA. Update on new technologies in digital mammography. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:781–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machida H, Yuhara T, Tamura M, Ishikawa T, Tate E, Ueno E, Nye K, Sabol JM. Whole-body clinical applications of digital Tomosynthesis. Radiographics. 2016;36:735–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philipotts LE. Advances in digital breast Tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:256–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB. Digital breast Tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(3):663–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Euclid Seeram
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Medical Radiation Sciences University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Imaging and Radiation SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  4. 4.Adjunct Professor, Faculty of ScienceCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  5. 5.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of HealthUniversity of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations