Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workflow in der digitalen Screeningmammographie

Workflow in digital screening mammography

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Vordringliches Ziel eines organisierten Mammographiescreenings ist es, medizinische Versorgung auf hohem Niveau flächendeckend zu vertretbaren Kosten anzubieten. Die folgende Übersicht legt dar, wie diese beiden Aspekte des Screenings, Qualität und Kosteneffizienz, in idealer Weise durch einen rein digitalen Workflow unterstützt werden. Digitale Mammographiesysteme gewährleisten eine gleich bleibend hohe Bildqualität, Wiederholungsaufnahmen auf Grund von Fehlbelichtungen entfallen. Dedizierte Mammographiescreening-Workstations mit Integration von Bildbetrachtung und Befundung ermöglichen eine effiziente Softcopy-Befundung. Arbeitsabläufe wie Doppelbefundung, Archivierung und Bereitstellung von Voraufnahmen sowie der Informationsaustausch zwischen den Mitgliedern des zertifizierten Teams der Screeningeinheit und mit anderen weiterbehandelnden Ärzten werden durch das Vorliegen der Bilddaten in digitaler Form deutlich erleichtert.

Abstract

The overriding goal of an organized mammography screening program is to offer high level medical care to everyone at a justifiable cost. The following overview will demonstrate how both aspects of screening, quality and cost efficiency, are supported by a fully digital workflow. Digital mammography systems allow for a constant high image quality and repeat examinations due to overexposure or underexposure can be avoided. Dedicated mammography screening workstations with integration of image viewing and reporting enable efficient softcopy reading. Many aspects of the screening workflow, such as double reading, archiving and retrieval of stored films, as well as information exchange between members of the certified team of the screening unit and other physicians involved in the further treatment, are made significantly easier by the presence of image data in digital form.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29: 830–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M et al. (2006) Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187: 38–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bick U (2000) Digitale Vollfeldmammographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 172: 957–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bick U (2006) Mammographie-Screening in Deutschland: Wie, wann und warum? Fortschr Röntgenstr 178: 957–969

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184: 613–617

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM (2005) Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 236: 451–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE et al. (2006) Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system. Med Phys 33: 2998–3005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP et al. (2005) The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185: 790–796

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC (2005) Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185: 944–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH et al. (2004) Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 231: 564–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220: 781–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fröhlich CP, Weigel C, Mohr M et al. (2007) Teleradiologie im Mammographie-Screening: Evaluation eines Testnetzes mit dedizierten Befundungsstationen. Fortschr Röntgenstr 179: 137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A et al. (2004) Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur J Radiol 14: 645–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (2004) Einführung eines bundesweiten Mammographie-Screening-Programms. Dtsch Ärztebl 101: Beilage Heft 4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (2005) Änderungen der Anlage 9.2 (Versorgung im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening) der Bundesmantelverträge: Mindestanforderungen an die apparative Ausstattung der Röntgendiagnostikeinrichtungen. Dtsch Ärztebl 102: A 1309

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malich A, Fischer DR, Bottcher J (2006) CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol 16: 1449–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D et al. (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12: 1697–1702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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, Luxemburg

  20. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al. (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223: 483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2005) Digital mammography. Radiology 234: 353–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD et al. (2006) Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol 16: 45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Samei E, Saunders RS jr, Baker JA et al. (2007) Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology 243: 396–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) 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 Oslo II study. Radiology 244: 708–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) 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 232: 197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. Warren RM, Young JR, McLean L et al. (2003) Radiology review of the UKCCCR Breast Screening Frequency Trial: potential improvements in sensitivity and lead time of radiological signs. Clin Radiol 58: 128–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Weigel S, Girnus R, Czwoydzinski J et al. (2007) Digitale Mammografie im Screening: Parenchymdosis und initiale Performance-Parameter. Fortschr Röntgenstr 179: 892–895

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

U. Bick, F. Diekmann und E. M. Fallenberg sind als Referenten auf Veranstaltungen tätig, die durch eine oder mehrere der Firmen Carestream, GE, Hologic, MeVis BreastCare und Siemens organisiert oder finanziell unterstützt werden, und haben in diesem Rahmen Vortragshonorare und/oder Reisekostenunterstützung erhalten.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Radiologie, Campus Mitte, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland

    U. Bick, F. Diekmann & E.M. Fallenberg

Authors
  1. U. Bick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Diekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E.M. Fallenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Bick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bick, U., Diekmann, F. & Fallenberg, E. Workflow in der digitalen Screeningmammographie. Radiologe 48, 335–344 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-008-1633-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-008-1633-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation