Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening

Radiology

Volumn 242, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 70-77

  Roelofs, Antonius A J ^a   Karssemeijer, Nico ^a   Wedekind, Nora ^a   Beck, Christian ^a   Van Woudenberg, Sander ^a   Snoeren, Peter R ^a   Hendriks, Jan H C L ^a   Del Turco, Marco Rosselli ^a   Bjurstam, Nils ^a   Junkermann, Hans ^a   Beijerinck, David ^a   Séradour, Brigitte ^a   Evertsz, Carl J G ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PREVALENCE; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE;

EID: 33845633847     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2421050684     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Giorgi D, Ambrogetti D, Bianchi S, et al. Design and preliminary results of the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Programme (Progetto Firenze Donna). Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3(1):29-34.
4. Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, Groenewoud JH, et al. National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: 10th evaluation report. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: NETB, 2003.
5. Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD, et al. Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol 2006;16(1):45-52.
6. Evertsz CJG, Karssemeijer N, Bödicker A, et al. SCREEN-TRIAL: softcopy reading in European screening mammography. In: Peitgen HO. Digital mammography, IWDAI 2002. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2003; 423-427.
7. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) supplement 28: grayscale standard display function. Rosslyn, Va: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1998.
8. van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JHCL. Optimized perception of lesion growth in mammograms using digital display. In: Chakraborty DP, Krupinski EA, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2003-image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. Vol 5034. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2003; 25-31.
9. Roelofs AAJ, van Woudenberg S, Hendriks JHCL, Karssemeijer N. Optimized soft-copy display of digitized mammograms. In: Chakraborty DP, Krupinski EA, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2003-image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. Vol 5034. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2003; 10-19.
10. Swensson RG. Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys 1996;23:1709-1725.
11. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003;227:192-200.
12. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-562.
13. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2000;216:306.]
14. Lynge E, Olsen AH, Fracheboud J, Patnick J. Reporting performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003;12:213-222.
15. Oestreicher N, Lehman CD, Seger DJ, Buist DS, White E. The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;184:428-432.
16. Thurfjell MG, Vitak B, Azevedo E, Svane G, Thurfjell E. Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 2000;41:52-56.
17. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1173-1177.
18. Callaway MP, Boggis CR, Astley SA, Hutt I. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997;52(7):527-529.