Comparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a proficiency test of screening mammography;Confronto tra lettura convenzionale e lettura aiutata dall'analisi computerizzata (CAD) in un test di mammografia di screening

Radiologia Medica

Volumn 106, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 59-65

  Ciatto, Stefano ^a   Brancato, Beniamino ^a   Del Turco, Marco Rosselli ^a   Risso, Gabriella ^a   Catarzi, Sandra ^a   Morrone, Doralba ^a   Bricolo, Daniela ^a   Zappa, Marco ^a  

^a CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Computer aided diagnosis; Diagnosis; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERFORMANCE; RADIOLOGIST; RECALL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0141989919     PISSN: 00338362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Paci E, Ciatto S, Buiatti E et al: Early indicators of efficacy of breast screening programmes. Results of the Florence District Programme. Int J Cancer 46: 198-202, 1990.
2. Dijck JAAM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL et al: The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program: a review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers. Cancer 72: 1933-1938, 1993.
3. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Catarzi S et al: Proficiency test for screening mammography: results for 117 volunteer italian radiologists. J Med Screen 6: 149-151, 1999.
4. Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Ambrogetti D et al: Test per la valutazione dell'accuratezza diagnostica nella mammografia. Risultati di 103 test sostenuti da radiologi italiani. Radiol Med 92: 367-371, 1996.
5. Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Morrone D et al: Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 2: 99-101, 1995.
6. Kirkpatrick A, Thomberg S, Thissen AI: The European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening. European Community, Europe Against Cancer Programme, Brussels, 1992.
7. Bird RE: Professional Quality Assurance for Mammographic Screening Programs. Radiology 177:587-591,1990.
8. Kopans DB: Breast Imaging, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, pag 214, 1998.
9. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AAS: Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 191: 241-244, 1994.
10. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC: Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613-617, 1992.
11. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs. blinded interpretation. AJR 161: 1167-1172, 1993.
12. Kopans DB. Breast Imaging, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, pag 793, 1998.
13. Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Risso G et al: Comparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a national proficiency test of screening mammography. Eur J Radiol, 45: 135-138, 2003.
14. Bazzocchi M, Facecchia I, Zuiani C et al: Application of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to digitalized mammograms for identifying microcalcifications. Radiol Med 101: 334-430, 2001.
15. Brancato B, Ciatto S, Bricolo D et al: Valutazione dell'impatto della doppia lettura da parte di lettori esperti in un'indagine mammografica di massa. Radiol Med 100: 21-23, 2000.
16. Malich A, Marx C, Facius M et al: Tumor detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system. Eur Radiol 11: 2454-2459, 2001.
17. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Hoffmeister J et al: Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance, histology and lesion size. Radiology; 217(P): 400, 2000.