Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographieplattform

Perspectives of the digital mammography platform

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

Zusammenfassung

Etwa jede neunte Frau in Europa erkrankt im Laufe ihres Lebens an Brustkrebs. Durch die Einführung von Mammographiescreeningprogrammen werden immer mehr kleine Brustkarzinome in einem frühen Stadium entdeckt. Die Einführung der digitalen Mammographie erzielt insbesondere bei bestimmten Patientinnengruppen eine weitere kontinuierliche Senkung der Brustkrebsmortalität. Zusätzlich ermöglicht die digitale Mammographie die Entwicklung neuer und Fusion bereits existierender bildgebender Methoden. Zu dieser „digitalen Mammographieplattform“ gehören die digitale Brusttomosynthese, die digitale Kontrastmittelmammographie und die digitale Kontrastmittel-Brusttomosynthese sowie fusionierte Datensätze der digitalen Mammographie mit dem Ultraschall oder der MRT. Diese innovativen Techniken bieten die Möglichkeit, die Sensitivität der Mammographie zu steigern und die Brustkrebsmortalität weiter zu senken. Der folgende Artikel fasst diese neuen Anwendungen zusammen, beschreibt die Stärken der digitalen Plattform und veranschaulicht den potenziellen Vorteil einer verbesserten Brustkrebsfrüherkennung durch die digitale Mammographie.

Abstract

In Europe one out of every nine women suffers from breast cancer during her lifetime. Since the introduction of mammography screening programs more breast cancers are being diagnosed when they are still small and early stage cancers with a favourable prognosis. The introduction of digital mammography systems has led to a continuous reduction of breast cancer mortality especially in specific patient subgroups. Furthermore, the digital mammography platform enables the development of new, innovative breast imaging methods to increase sensitivity and decrease breast cancer mortality. This digital mammography platform includes digital breast tomosynthesis, digital contrast medium mammography and digital contrast medium breast tomosynthesis as well as fused data sets from digital mammography with ultrasound or MRI. The following article summarizes these new applications, describes the strengths of the digital platform and illustrates the potential advantages of an improved breast cancer diagnosis by digital mammography.

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
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Riedl CC, Jaromi S, Floery D et al (2005) Potential of dose reduction after marker placement with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol 40:343–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schueller G, Kaindl E, Langenberger H et al (2007) Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified? Eur J Radiol 62:267–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schueller G, Riedl CC, Mallek R et al (2008) Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. Eur J Radiol 67:487–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schueller G, Schueller-Weidekamm C, Pinker K et al (2009) Comparison of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitors and 5-megapixel liquid crystal monitors for soft-copy reading in full-field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol, in press

  7. 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 

  8. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J (1991) Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis – correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baldwin P (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Technol 81:57M–74M

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rafferty EA (2007) Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 45:831–843, vii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wacker T, Bautz W (2008) Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography. Radiologe 48:324–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rafferty EA, Georgian-Smith D, Kopans DB et al (2002) Comparison of full-field digital tomosynthesis with two view conventional film screen mammography in the prediction of lesion malignancy [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 88th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Chicago (IL)

  16. Rafferty EA, Kopans DB, Georgian-Smith D et al (2003) Comparison of full-field digital tomosynthesis and conventional two view film screen mammography in lesion detection and assessment of lesion conspicuity [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Roentgen Ray Society. San Diego (CA)

  17. Rafferty EA, Wu T, Moore RH et al (2003) Optimization of image acquisition and display algorithms to enhance visualization of microcalcifications during digital breast tomosynthesis [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 89th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Chicago (IL)

  18. Rafferty EA, Niklason LT, Jameson-Meehan L (2006) Breast Tomosynthesis: one view or two? [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Chicago (IL)

  19. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS et al (o J) Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 17:450–455

  21. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BI-RADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rafferty EA, Kopans DB, Georgian-Smith D et al (2003) Evaluation of the call-back rate for screening mammography using full-field digital tomosynthesis versus conventional film screen mammography [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Roentgen Ray Society. San Diego (CA)

  23. Diekmann F, Bick U (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 17:3086–3092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Giger ML et al (2006) Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images. Med Phys 33:482–491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Garrison JB, Grant DG, Guier WH, Johns RJ (1969) Three dimensional roentgenography. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 105:903–908

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller ER, McCurry EM, Hruska B (1971) An infinite number of laminagrams from a finite number of radiographs. Radiology 98:249–255

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith AP, Hall PA, Marcello DM (2004) Emerging technologies in breast cancer detection. Radiol Manage 26:16–24; quiz 25–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang CH, Nesbit DE, Fisher DR et al (1982) Computed tomographic mammography using a conventional body scanner. AJR Am J Roentgenol 138:553–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Izzo L, Stasolla A, Basso L et al (2005) Characterization of tumoral lesions of the breast: preliminary experience with multislice spiral CT. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 24:209–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S et al (1996) Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 200:639–649

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O et al (1994) Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 191:625–631

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E et al (1989) MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 171:95–103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C et al (1997) MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 202:413–420

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Westerhof JP, Fischer U, Moritz JD, Oestmann JW (1998) MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology 207:675–681

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schulz-Wendtland R, Fuchsjager M, Wacker T, Hermann KP (2009) Digital mammography: an update. Eur J Radiol 72:258–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bornefalk H, Lewin JM, Danielsson M, Lundqvist M (2006) Single-shot dual-energy subtraction mammography with electronic spectrum splitting: feasibility. Eur J Radiol 60:275–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Behrenbruch CP, Marias K, Armitage PA et al (2004) Fusion of contrast-enhanced breast MR and mammographic imaging data. Br J Radiol 77 Spec No 2:S201–S208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W528–W537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen SC, Carton AK, Albert M et al (2007) Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis. Acad Radiol 14:229–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sardanelli F, Calabrese M, Zandrino F et al (1998) Dynamic helical CT of breast tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22:398–407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kapur A, Carson PL, Eberhard J et al (2004) Combination of digital mammography with semi-automated 3D breast ultrasound. Technol Cancer Res Treat 3:325–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Allgemeine Radiologie und Kinderradiologie, Division für Molekulare und Gender-Bildgebung, Universitätsklinik für Radiodiagnostik, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090, Wien, Österreich

    R. Gruber, C.C. Riedl, M. Reisegger, K. Pinker, E. Sturm, F. Semturs &  T.H. Helbich

Authors
  1. R. Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C.C. Riedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Reisegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Pinker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Sturm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Semturs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T.H. Helbich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T.H. Helbich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gruber, R., Riedl, C., Reisegger, M. et al. Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographieplattform. Radiologe 50, 999–1007 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-010-2010-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-010-2010-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation