Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2020

Open Access 01-08-2020 | Mammography | Breast

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

Authors: Mona Øynes, Bergliot Strøm, Bente Tveito, Bjørg Hafslund

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Itani M, Griffin AT, Whitman GJ (2013) Mammography of breast calcifications. Imaging Med 5:63–74CrossRef
2.
Muttarak M, Kongmebhol P, Sukhamwang N (2009) Breast calcifications: which are malignant. Singapore Med J 50:907–914PubMed
3.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, fourth edition. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Communities, Luxembourg
4.
Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942CrossRef
5.
Geller BM, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Harvey SC (2005) The use of additional imaging increased specificity and decreased sensitivity in screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 58:942–950CrossRef
6.
Madan AK, Nguyen MT, Wakabayashi MN, Beech DJ (2001) Magnification views of mammography decrease biopsy rates. Am Surg 67:687–689PubMed
7.
Bosmans H, Carton A-K, Rogge F et al (2005) Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117:120–130CrossRef
8.
Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Sechopoulos I, D’Orsi CJ (2007) Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size. Radiology 244:130–137CrossRef
9.
Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Andersson I et al (2005) Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: a pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:415–423CrossRef
10.
Noel A, Thibault F (2004) Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges. Eur Radiol 14:1990–1998CrossRef
11.
Saunders RS, Baker JA, Delong DM, Johnson JP, Samei E (2007) Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys 34:3971–3981CrossRef
12.
Tanaka N, Naka K, Kumazawa S et al (2009) Imaging properties of digital magnification mammography. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Munich, Germany. Springer, pp 64–66
13.
Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C et al (2009) Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography. Med Phys 36:765–775CrossRef
14.
Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, Fan J (2005) Differential use of image enhancement techniques by experienced and inexperienced observers. J Digit Imaging 18:311–315CrossRef
15.
Park H-S, Oh Y, Kim S-T, Kim H-J (2012) Effects of breast thickness and lesion location on resolution in digital magnification mammography. Clin Imaging 36:255–262CrossRef
16.
Koutalonis M, Delis H, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Tzanakos G, Panayiotakis G (2008) Monte Carlo studies on the influence of focal spot size and intensity distribution on spatial resolution in magnification mammography. Phys Med Biol 53:1369–1674CrossRef
17.
Liu B, Goodsitt M, Chan H-P (1995) Normalized average glandular dose in magnification mammography. Radiology 197:27–32CrossRef
18.
Law J (2005) Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. Br J Radiol 78:816–820CrossRef
19.
Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Kontogiannis E, Gourtsoyiannis N (2001) Film-screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 36:726–733CrossRef
20.
Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Funke M, Hermann K, Grabbe E (2002) Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming. Radiologe 42:261–264CrossRef
21.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269CrossRef
22.
23.
24.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:210–219CrossRef
25.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRef
26.
Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y (2010) Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 10. The Cochrane Collaboration
27.
Chu H, Cole SR (2006) Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1331CrossRef
28.
Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRef
29.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558CrossRef
30.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRef
31.
32.
Sterne JAC, Egger, M, Moher, D (2011) Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins J, Green, S, (ed) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration
33.
34.
35.
36.
Alkhalifah K, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah A (2016) Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography. J Xray Sci Technol 24:681–689PubMed
37.
Egan G, Keavey E, Phelan N (2012) Comparison of contact spot imaging on a scanning mammography system to conventional geometric magnification imaging. International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Springer, pp 165–172
38.
Vahey K, Ryan E, McLean D, Poulos A, Rickard M (2012) A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom. Eur J Radiol 81:1514–1519CrossRef
39.
Koutalonis M, Delis H, Pascoal A, Spyrou G, Costaridou L, Panayiotakis G (2010) Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study. Br J Radiol 83:569–577CrossRef
40.
Hermann K-P, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe E (2002) Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 12:2188–2191CrossRef
41.
Fallenberg E, Dimitrijevic L, Diekmann F et al (2014) Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography. Rofo 186:274–280
42.
Moraux-Wallyn M, Chaveron C, Bachelle F, Taieb S, Ceugnart L (2010) Comparison between electronic zoom and geometric magnification of clusters of microcalcifications on digital mammography. J Radiol 91:879–883CrossRef
43.
Kim M, Youk J, Kang D et al (2010) Zooming method (× 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (× 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 83:486–492CrossRef
44.
Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY et al (2009) Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography? Eur Radiol 19:310–317CrossRef
45.
46.
47.
Spyrou G, Panayuotakis G, Tzanakos G (2000) MASTOS: mammography simulation tool for design optimization studies. Med Inform Internet Med 25:275–293CrossRef
48.
Balleyguier C, Ayadi S, Van Nguyen K, Vanel D, Dromain C, Sigal R (2007) BIRADS™ classification in mammography. Eur J Radiol 61:192–194CrossRef
49.
Cederström B, Fredenberg E (2014) The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography. Med Phys 41:121903CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review
Authors
Mona Øynes
Bergliot Strøm
Bente Tveito
Bjørg Hafslund
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

European Radiology 8/2020 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal

Meglumine diatrizoate esophagogram after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM): identification of imaging findings associated with clinical complications and longer hospital stay

Breast

Diagnostic performance of standard breast MRI compared to dedicated axillary MRI for assessment of node-negative and node-positive breast cancer

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Diagnostic accuracy and potential covariates for machine learning to identify IDH mutations in glioma patients: evidence from a meta-analysis

Radiological Education

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly

Urogenital

Validation of the PI-RADS language: predictive values of PI-RADS lexicon descriptors for detection of prostate cancer

Chest

CT image visual quantitative evaluation and clinical classification of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)