Two-Modality Mammography May Confer an Advantage Over Either Full-Field Digital Mammography or Screen-Film Mammography

Academic Radiology

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 670-676

  Glueck, Deborah H ^a   Lamb, Molly M ^a   Lewin, John M ^b   Pisano, Etta D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b Diversified Radiology of Colorado   (United States)

^c NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

combined test; Digital mammography; film mammography; ROC area under the curve analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MCNEMAR TEST; MICROFILM; PARAMETRIC TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34250204937     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Lewin J.M., D'Orsi C.J., Hendrick R.E., et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 671-677
2. Skaane P., Young K., and Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I Study. Radiology 229 (2003) 877-884
3. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al., Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (2005) 1773-1783
4. Sickles E.A., Weber W.N., Galvin H.B., et al. Baseline screening mammography: One vs two views per breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 147 (1986) 1149-1153
5. Chakraborty D.P., and Winter L.H. Free-response methodology: Alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology 174 (1990) 873-881
6. Hanley J.A., and McNeil B.J. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148 (1983) 839-843
7. Metz C., Wang P., and Kronman H.A. New approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F. (Ed). Information Processing in Medical Imaging (1984), The Hague, the Netherlands, Nijihoff
8. DeLong E.R., DeLong D.M., and Clarke-Pearson D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44 (1988) 837-845
9. Hajian-Tilaki K.O., Hanley J.A., Joseph L., et al. A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches to ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic tests. Med Decis Making 17 (1997) 94-102
10. Zhou X.-H., McClish D.K., and Obuchowski N.A. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine (2002), John Wiley and Sons, New York
11. Daniel W.W. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. 2nd ed. (1990), Duxbury Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA
12. Anttinen I., Pamilo M., Soiva M., et al. Double reading of mammography screening films-One radiologist or two?. Clin Radiol 48 (1993) 414-421
13. Thurfjell E.L., Lernevall K.A., and Taube A.A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 191 (1994) 241-244
14. Ciatto S., Rosselli Del Turco M., Burke P., et al. Comparison of standard and double reading and computer-aided detection (CAD) of interval cancers at prior negative screening mammograms: blind review. Br J Cancer 89 (2003) 1645-1649