Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: Effects of image processing and lesion type

Radiology

Volumn 226, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 153-160

  Cole, Elodia B ⁱ   Pisano, Etta D ^a   Kistner, Emily O ⁱ   Muller, Keith E ⁱ   Brown, Marylee E ⁱ   Feig, Stephen A ^b   Jong, Roberta A ^c   Maidment, Andrew D A ^d   Staiger, Melinda J ^e   Kuzmiak, Cherie M ⁱ   Freimanis, Rita I ^f   Lesko, Nadine ^f   Rosen, Eric L ^g   Walsh, Ruth ^g   Williford, Margaret ^g   Braeuning, M Patricia ^h  

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

^b MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center   (United States)

^f WAKE FOREST BAPTIST HEALTH   (United States)

^g DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h CHRIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ NONE

Author keywords

Breast radiography, comparative studies; Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Images, processing; Radiography, digital; Screens and films

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0037257187     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2261012024     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, et al. Imaging the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 1993; 188:297-301.
2. Feig SA. The importance of supplementary views to diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151:40-41.
3. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mamography image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:871-898.
4. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:893-901.
5. Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183:629-630.
6. Pisano ED. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 2000; 214: 26-28.
7. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologist preferences for digital mammography display. Radiology 2000; 216:820-830.
8. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Elmore JG, Seger D, White D, Brenner RJ. Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1257-1262.
9. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Metz CE, Giger ML, Doi K. Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:22-33.
10. Rosenberg RD, Hunt William C, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998; 209:511-518.
11. Van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52:267-271.
12. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. RadioGraphics 2000; 20:1479-1491.
13. Chakraborty DP, Winter HL. Free response methodology: alternative analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 1990; 174:873-881.
14. Kirk RE. Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole, 1995.
15. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, Calif: Duxbury, 1998.
16. Sickles EA. Mammographic detectability of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 139:913-918.
17. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880.
18. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213.
19. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:17691777.