Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens

Academic Radiology

Volumn 9, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 1378-1382

  Kuzmiak, Cherie M ^a   Millnamow, Gregory A ^a   Qaqish, Bahjat ^c   Pisano, Etta D ^a   Cole, Elodia B ^a   Brown, Marylee E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c IL   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, diagnosis; Breast radiography, comparative studies; Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FILM; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; ROC CURVE;

EID: 0036936795     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80664-5     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognostic factors. Radiology 1996; 199:811-817.
2. Feig AS, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:893-901.
3. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223:483-488.
4. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the area under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1998; 44:837-845.