Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study

Radiology

Volumn 247, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 38-48

  Hendrick, R Edward ^a   Cole, Elodia B ^b   Pisano, Etta D ^b   Acharyya, Suddhasatta ^c   Marques, Helga ^c   Cohen, Michael A ^d   Jong, Roberta A ^e   Mawdsley, Gordon E ^e   Kanal, Kalpana M ^f   D'Orsi, Carl J ^g   Rebner, Murray ^h   Gatsonis, Constantine ^c  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 42449127512     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070418     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. 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(2):404-412.
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Hendrick RE, et al. Diagnostic accuracy 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. Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. IWDM 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, Wis: Med Phys Publishing, 2001;475-481.
4. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer SenoScan digital mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004;11(8):879-886.
5. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002;223(2):483-488.
6. Kuzmiak CM, Millnamow GA, Qaqish B, et al. Comparison of full field digital mammography to film-screen mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. Acad Radiol 2002;9(12):1378-1382.
7. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts presenting for problem-solving mammography: image processing and lesion type effects. Radiology 2003;226(1):153-160.
8. 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(1):37-44.
9. Obuchowski NA. Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 1995;2(suppl 1):S22-S29.
10. Obuchowski NA. Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs. Acad Radiol 1995;2(8):709-716.
11. Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Commun Stat Simulat 1995;24:285-308.