Cargando…

Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications. METHODS: We ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Øynes, Mona, Strøm, Bergliot, Tveito, Bente, Hafslund, Bjørg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32222798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6
_version_ 1783554642773278720
author Øynes, Mona
Strøm, Bergliot
Tveito, Bente
Hafslund, Bjørg
author_facet Øynes, Mona
Strøm, Bergliot
Tveito, Bente
Hafslund, Bjørg
author_sort Øynes, Mona
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications. METHODS: We ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and Web of Science. Diagnostic test studies, experimental breast phantom studies and a Monte Carlo phantom study were included. A narrative approach was selected to summarise and compare findings regarding the detection of microcalcifications, while a hierarchical model with bivariate analysis was used for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing microcalcifications. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Phantom studies suggested that the size of microcalcifications, magnification or zoom factor, exposure factors and detector technology determine whether digital zoom is equivalent to magnification mammography in the detection of microcalcifications. Pooled sensitivity for magnification and zoom calculated from the diagnostic test studies was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84–0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70–0.94), respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51–0.58) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.50–0.62), respectively. The differences between the sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Digital zoom may be equivalent to magnification mammography. Diagnostic test studies and phantom studies using newer detector technology would contribute additional knowledge on this topic. KEY POINTS: • The performance of digital zoom is comparable to magnification for detecting microcalcifications when newer detector technology and optimised imaging procedures are utilised. • The accuracy of digital zoom appears equivalent to geometric magnification in diagnosing microcalcifications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7338280
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73382802020-07-09 Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review Øynes, Mona Strøm, Bergliot Tveito, Bente Hafslund, Bjørg Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: To summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications. METHODS: We ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and Web of Science. Diagnostic test studies, experimental breast phantom studies and a Monte Carlo phantom study were included. A narrative approach was selected to summarise and compare findings regarding the detection of microcalcifications, while a hierarchical model with bivariate analysis was used for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing microcalcifications. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Phantom studies suggested that the size of microcalcifications, magnification or zoom factor, exposure factors and detector technology determine whether digital zoom is equivalent to magnification mammography in the detection of microcalcifications. Pooled sensitivity for magnification and zoom calculated from the diagnostic test studies was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84–0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70–0.94), respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51–0.58) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.50–0.62), respectively. The differences between the sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Digital zoom may be equivalent to magnification mammography. Diagnostic test studies and phantom studies using newer detector technology would contribute additional knowledge on this topic. KEY POINTS: • The performance of digital zoom is comparable to magnification for detecting microcalcifications when newer detector technology and optimised imaging procedures are utilised. • The accuracy of digital zoom appears equivalent to geometric magnification in diagnosing microcalcifications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-03-28 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7338280/ /pubmed/32222798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Breast
Øynes, Mona
Strøm, Bergliot
Tveito, Bente
Hafslund, Bjørg
Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title_full Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title_fullStr Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title_short Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
title_sort digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32222798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6
work_keys_str_mv AT øynesmona digitalzoomofthefullfielddigitalmammogramversusmagnificationmammographyasystematicreview
AT strømbergliot digitalzoomofthefullfielddigitalmammogramversusmagnificationmammographyasystematicreview
AT tveitobente digitalzoomofthefullfielddigitalmammogramversusmagnificationmammographyasystematicreview
AT hafslundbjørg digitalzoomofthefullfielddigitalmammogramversusmagnificationmammographyasystematicreview