Der Radiologe

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 324–334 | Cite as

Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographie

  • R. Schulz-Wendtland
  • K.-P. Hermann
  • T. Wacker
  • W. Bautz
Leitthema: Mammadiagnostik

Zusammenfassung

Die digitale Mammographie hat die konventionelle Film-Folien-Mammographie weitgehend ersetzt und ist heute Standard in Kombination mit der Monitorbefundung sowohl in der kurativen als auch Screeningmammographie. Große internationale Multicenterstudien zeigen eine Gleichwertigkeit bzw. Überlegenheit der Karzinomentdeckungsrate der digitalen im Vergleich zur konventionellen Mammographie, insbesondere bei dichten Mammae, prä-/perimenopausalen Frauen und Frauen unter 50 Jahren. CAD (engl. „computer aided detection“ bzw. „computer assisted diagnosis“) ist wichtig für den erfahrenen Untersucher (Erhöhung der Spezifität). Die digitale Mammographie bietet weitere Möglichkeiten wie Tomosynthese, digitale Kontrastmittelmammographie und die Kombination von digitaler Mammographie und Ultraschall. Die Zukunft in der Mammadiagnostik wird die Fusion von Bildern unterschiedlicher digitaler Systeme sein.

Schlüsselwörter

Digitale Mammographie Konventionelle Mammographie Tomosynthese Kontrastmittelmammographie Ultraschall 

Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography

Abstract

Digital mammography has extensively replaced conventional film screen mammography and is now the standard in combination with soft copy reading in clinical as well as screening mammography. Large international multicenter studies demonstrate an equivalent or superior detection rate of breast cancers by digital in comparison to conventional mammography especially in dense breasts, premenopausal and perimenopausal women and women less than 50 years old. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is important for the experienced investigator (increased specificity). Digital mammography also offers further options, such as tomosynthesis, digital contrast-enhanced mammography and the combination of digital mammography and ultrasound. The future in breast diagnosis will be the fusion of images from different digital systems.

Keywords

Digital mammography Conventional mammography Tomosynthesis Contrast-enhanced mammography Ultrasound 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Becker N, Bock K et al. (2007) Mammographie-Screening. Radiologe 47: 359–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE et al. (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179: 671–677PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Lell M et al. (2004) Phantomstudie zur Detektion simulierter Läsionen an fünf verschiedenen digitalen und einem konventionellen Mammographiesystem. RöFo 176: 1127–1132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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: 197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M et al. (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353: 1773–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission (2003) Addendum on digital mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, European Protocol for the Quality Control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening, Version 1.0. European Commission, November 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Normenausschuss Radiologie (2005) PAS 1054: Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für digitale Mammographie-Einrichtungen. Normenausschuss Radiologie, März 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anlage 9.2 BMV-Ä/EKV (2005) Versorgung im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening. Dtsch Ärztebl 18: A1309Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hermann KP, Funke M, Grabbe E (2002) Physikalisch-technische Aspekte der digitalen Mammographie. Radiologe 42: 256–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Bautz W (2005) Digitale Mammographie: Klinische Ergebnisse. Radiologe 45: 255–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16: 38–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Marten K et al. (2002) Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography – clinical results. RöFo 174: 696–699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gosch D, Jendraß S, Scholz M, Kahn T (2006) Strahlenexposition bei der digitalen Vollfeldmammographie mit einem Selen-Flachdetektor. RöFo 178: 693–697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weigel S, Girnus R, Czywoydzinski J et al. (2007) Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters. RöFo 179: 892–895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S et al. (2007) Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188: 377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mamography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244: 708–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O Shoughnessy KF, Sickles EA (2001) Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219: 192–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freer TW, Ullssey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12.860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220: 781–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Funovics M, Schamp S, Helbich TH et al. (2001) Evaluierung eines computerassistierten Diagnosesystems in der Erkennung des Mammakarzinoms. RöFo 173: 218–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malich A, Marx C, Facius M et al. (2001) Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system. Eur J Radiol 11: 2454–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR (2006) Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection: prospective evaluation. Radiology 239: 375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dean JC, Ilvento CC (2006) Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187: 20–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ko JM, Nickolas MJ, Mendel JB (2006) Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187: 1483–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G et al. (2005) Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance and histopathology. Cancer 104: 931–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA (2005) Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184: 439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL et al. (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses in mammograms. Radiology 227: 192–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karssemeijer N (2000) Computer-aided detection and interpretation in mammography. In: Yaffe MJ (ed) Digital mammography IWDM 2000. Medical Physics Publishing, Wisconsin, pp 243–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA et al. (2001) Potential of computer-aided diagnose to reduce variability in radiologists interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology 227: 192–200Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bick U (1996) Computerassistierte Diagnose in der Screeningmammographie. Radiologe 36: 72–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kegelmeyer WP, Prudeda JM, Bourland PD et al. (1994) Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. Radiology 191: 331–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elter M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wittenberg T (2007) The prediction of breast cancer biopsy outcomes using two CAD approaches that both emphasize an intelligible decision process. Med Phys 23: 4164–4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al. (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205: 399–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Lell M et al. (2006) Experimental phantom lesions detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system. RöFo 178: 1219–1223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Lell M et al. (2007) Digital mammographic tomosynthesis system – first clinical results. Eur J Radiol 17: 250–251Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diekmann F, Bick U (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 17: 3086–3092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Wenkel E, Wacker T, Bautz W (2006) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography versus MR imaging: initial clinical experience. Eur J Radiol 16: 209Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rafferty EA (2007) Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 5: 831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lawaczeck R, Diekmann F, Diekmann S (2003) New contrast media designed for x-ray energy subtraction imaging in digital mammography. Invest Radiol 38: 602–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Schulz-Wendtland
    • 1
  • K.-P. Hermann
    • 2
  • T. Wacker
    • 3
  • W. Bautz
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiologisches Institut, Gynäkologische RadiologieUniversitätsklinikum ErlangenErlangenDeutschland
  2. 2.Abteilung Diagnostische RadiologieUniversitätsmedizin GöttingenGöttingenDeutschland
  3. 3.Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations