Clinical experience of the first digital mammographic unit in Australia in its first year of use

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 187, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 576-579

  Pun, Emma ^a   Lau, W F Eddie ^a   Cassumbhoy, Robin ^a   Taranto, Anthony J ^a   Pitman, Alexander G ^b  

^a PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^b ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; CANCER LOCALIZATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; RADIOGRAPHY; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AUSTRALIA; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 38449098348     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01420.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, et al. The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 892-897.
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2002-2003. Canberra: AIHW, 2006. (Cancer Series No. 32. AIHW Cat. No. CAN 27.)
3. 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.
4. Pisano ED. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology 2000; 214: 26-28.
5. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 347-360.
6. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1784-1792.
7. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 1245-1256.
8. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004; 24: 1747-1760.
9. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2679-2683.
10. Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography] [German]. Rofo 2003; 175: 775-779.
11. Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, et al. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol 2005; 6: 214-220.
12. Dershaw DD. Film or digital mammographic screening [editorial]? N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1846-1847.
13. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 38-41.
14. Pisano ED, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M, Cance W. What every surgical oncologist should know about digital mammography. Semin Surg Oncol 2001; 20: 181-186.
15. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234: 353-362.
16. Yang WT, Whitman GJ, Johnson MM, et al. Needle localization for excisional biopsy of breast lesions: comparison of effect of use of full-field digital versus screen-film mammographic guidance on procedure time. Radiology 2004; 231: 277-281.
17. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218: 873-880.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, et al. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - observer performance study. Radiology 2005; 237: 37-44.
23. Helme S, Perry N, Mokbel K. Screening mammography in women aged 40-49: is it time to change [editorial]? Int Semin Surg Oncol 2006; 3: 4.