Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST

Radiology

Volumn 246, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 376-383

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Hendrick, R Edward ^c   Yaffe, Martin J ^d   Baum, Janet K ^e   Acharyya, Suddhasatta ^b   Cormack, Jean B ^b   Hanna, Lucy A ^b   Conant, Emily F ^g   Fajardo, Laurie L ^h   Bassett, Lawrence W ^f   D'Orsi, Carl J ^j   Jong, Roberta A ^d   Rebner, Murray ⁱ   Tosteson, Anna N A ^k   Gatsonis, Constantine A ^b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

ⁱ WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

^j EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLIMACTERIUM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POSTMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR CALCINOSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; AGE DISTRIBUTION; BREAST TUMOR; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; IMAGE QUALITY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 39549123613     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070200     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Yaffe M, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236(2):404-412.
2. 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(17):1773-1783. [Published correction appears in N Engl J Med 2006;355(17):1840.]
3. Keen JD. Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 2006;354(7):765-767.
4. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(3):168-175. [Published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2003;138(9):771.]
5. Pisano ED. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3(8):583-585.
6. Metz C, Wang P, 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. The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijhoff, 1984.
7. Zhou XH, Obuchowski N, McClish D. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York, NY: Wiley, 2002.
8. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated received operating characteristic curves: a non-parametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-845.
9. Toledano AY, Gatsonis C. Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate. Biometrics 1999;55(2):488-496.