Advances in mammography have improved early detection of breast cancer

Journal of the Hong Kong College of Radiologists

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 126-131

  Ng, K H ^a   Muttarak, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^b CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Digital radiography; Image quality; Mammography; Quality control

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ACCREDITATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CAUSE OF DEATH; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PALPATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDIZATION; TELECOMMUNICATION; TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION; UNITED STATES; X RAY FILM;

EID: 0345306797     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Parkin DM, Muir CS, Whelan SL, Gao YT, Ferlay J, Powell J. Cancer incidence in five continents. Vol VI. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publication No 120, IARC; 1992.
2. Letton AH, Mason EM, Ramshaw BJ. Twenty-year review of a breast cancer screening project: ninety-five percent survival of patients with nonpalpable cancers. Cancer 1996;77:104-106.
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149-154.
4. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later: update mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625-651.
5. Lee CH. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;49:395-407.
6. Gotzche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000;355:129-134.
7. Olsen O, Gotzche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340-1342.
8. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years: current evidence from randomized control trials. Cancer 1995;75: 1619-1626.
9. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR 1998; 171:29-33.
10. NCI statement on mammography screening. Office of Communications/Mass Media Branch. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2002.
11. Screening for breast cancer. Recommendations and rationale. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.
12. Jackson VP. Screening mammography: controversies and headlines. Radiology 2002;225:323-326.
13. Stomper PC, Margolin FR. Ductal carcinoma in situ: the mammographer's perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162: 585-591.
14. Feig SA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:653-668.
15. Feig SA. Hormonal reduction of mammographic densities: potential effects on breast cancer risk and performance of diagnostic and screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:408-409.
16. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, editors. Categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics: physical aspects of breast imaging current and future considerations. syllabus. Oak Brook: Radiological Society of North America; 1999.
17. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography: image quality and radiation dose considerations. Dedicated mammographic X-ray equipment, screen-film processing systems and viewing conditions for mammography. Semin Breast Dis 1999;2:22-51.
18. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography, in breast imaging. Clin Radiol North Am 2000;38:871-898.
19. Johns PC, Yaffe MJ. X-ray characterization of normal and neoplastic breast tissues. Phys. Med. Biol. 1987;32:675-95.
20. American College of Radiology (ACR) Mammography Quality Control Manual for Radiologists, Radiologic Technologists and Medical Physicists. Reston: American College of Radiology; 1999.
21. MQSA. Mammography Quality Standards Act. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/mqsa-rev.html
22. Jamal N, Ng K-H, McLean D. Low contrast imaging performance of computed radiography and screen-film mammography systems. Med Phys 2003. In press.
23. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR 2002;179:671-677.
24. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002;29:830-834.
25. ACRIN. American College of Radiology Imaging Network. http://www.acrin.org/
26. Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. In: Beutel J, Kundel HI, Van Metter RI, editors.Handbook of medical imaging. Vol 1. Physics and psychophysics. Bellingham: The International Society for Optical Engineering 2000;329-372.