American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: Objectives and methodology

Radiology

Volumn 236, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 404-412

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Gatsonis, Constantine A ^b   Yaffe, Martin J ^c   Hendrick, R Edward ^e   Tosteson, Anna N A ^f   Fryback, Dennis G ^g   Bassett, Lawrence W ^h   Baum, Janet K ⁱ   Conant, Emily F ^j   Jong, Roberta A ^d   Rebner, Murray ^k   D'Orsi, Carl J ^l  

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

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^k WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

^l EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEASUREMENT; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 22544432513     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2362050440     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-175.
2. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:266-280.
3. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:893-901.
4. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234:353-361.
5. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:879-886.
6. Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. IWDM 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, Wis: Medical Physics, 2001; 475-481.
7. 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 Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:671-677.
8. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884.
9. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004; 232:197-204.
10. Hendrick RE, Bassett LW, Dodd GD, et al. Mammography quality control: radiologist's manual, radiologic technologist's manual, medical physicist's manual. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1999.
11. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). 5th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
12. Rockette HE, Gur D, Metz CE. The use of continuous and discrete confidence judgments in receiver operating characteristic studies of diagnostic imaging techniques. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:169-172.
13. Tosteson AN, Begg CB. A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation. Med Decis Making 1988; 8:204-215.
14. Hanley J, McNeil B. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148:839-843.
15. Kind P. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 191-201.
16. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992; 31:301-306.
17. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr (in press).
18. Obuchowski N. Multi-reader multi-modality ROC studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 1995; 2(suppl 1):S22-S29.
19. Dofrman D, Berbaum K, Lenth R. Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic methodology: a bootstrap analysis. Acad Radiol 1995; 2:626-633.
20. Toledano A, Gatsonis CA, Ordinal regression methodology for ROC curves derived from correlated data. Stat Med 1996; 15:1807-1826.
21. Ishwaran H, Gatsonis C. A general class of hierarchical ordinal regression models with applications to correlated ROC analysis. Can J Stat 2000; 28:731-750.
22. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-134.
23. Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM. On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33:43-55.
24. Institute of Medicine. Saving women's lives: integration and innovation-a framework for progress in early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences (in press).
25. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Hunt WC, et al. Effects of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:1058-1068.
26. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:1001-1008.