The influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women

Breast Journal

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 167-172

  Houssami, Nehmat ^a,b   Irwig, Les ^a   Simpson, Judy M ^a   McKessar, Merran ^c   Blome, Steven ^c   Noakes, Jennie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b WESTMEAD HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Sensitivity; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RECORD; PREVALENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 18644372254     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21643.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Houssami N, Irwig L, Loy C. The accuracy of combined breast imaging in young women. Breast 2002;11:36-40.
2. Negri S, Bonetti F, Capitanio A, Bonzanini M. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration in the management of breast lesions: comparison of specificity and sensitivity with clinical examination, mammography, echography, and thermography in 249 patients. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:4-8.
3. Skaane P. The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. A prospective study. Acta Radiol 1999;40:486-90.
4. Teixidor HS, Kazam E. Combined mammographic-sonographic evaluation of breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977;128:409-17.
5. Moss HA, Britton PD, Flower CD, Freeman AH, Lomas DJ, Warren RML. How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population. Clin Radiol 1999;54:676-82.
6. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999;213:413-22.
7. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889-94.
8. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:935-40.
9. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;271:389-91.
10. Houssami N, Irwig L. Likelihood ratios for clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and fine needle biopsy in women with breast problems. Breast 1998;7:85-89.
11. National Breast Cancer Centre. Breast Imaging: A Guide for Practice. Sydney: National Breast Cancer Centre, 2002:83.
12. Altman DG, Gardner MJ. Means and their differences. In: Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ, eds. Statistics with Confidence - Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines, 2nd ed. London: BMJ, 2000:31-33.
13. Delong ER, Delong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under 2 or more correlated receiver operating characteristics curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.