Breast cancer detection rate: Designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements

Radiology

Volumn 243, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 360-367

  Jiang, Yule ^a   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Metz, Charles E ^a   Schmidt, Robert A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THEORETICAL STUDY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247483008     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432060253     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001;218:873-880.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783.
6. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12 860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-786.
7. Vyborny CJ, Kukec C, Jiang Y, Doi K. Experience with computer-aided detection in a low-volume mammography clinic. In: Peitgen HO, ed. Digital mammography 2002. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2002; 387-390.
8. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:185-190.
9. Irwig L, Honssami N, van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2118-2122.
10. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10-30.
11. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-1499.
12. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-213.
13. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1801-1809.
14. Schmidt RA, Newstead GM, Linyer MN, et al. Mammographic screening sensitivity of general radiologists. In: Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, van Erning L, eds. Digital mammography. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998; 383-388.
15. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-869.
16. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373-1380.
17. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1384-1393.
18. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840-1850.
19. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367.
20. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005;235:775-790.
21. 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.
22. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. http://breastscreening. cancer.gov. Accessed April 12, 2005.
23. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1546-1554.
24. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
25. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236:404-412.
26. Papoulis A. Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes. New York, NY: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1991.