Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: Radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model

Radiology

Volumn 252, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 348-357

  Pisano, Etta D ^a   Acharyya, Suddhasatta ^b   Cole, Elodia B ^a   Marques, Helga S ^b   Yaffe, Martin J ^c   Blevins, Meredith ^b   Conant, Emily F ^d   Hendrick, R Edward ^e   Baum, Janet K ^f   Fajardo, Laurie L ^g   Jong, Roberta A ^c   Koomen, Marcia A ^a   Kuzmiak, Cherie M ^a   Lee, Yeonhee ^a   Pavic, Dag ^a   Yoon, Sora C ^h   Padungchaichote, Wittaya ⁱ   Gatsonis, Constantine ^b  

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

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^h DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ Lopburi Cancer Center   (Thailand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; BREAST TUMOR; EVALUATION; IMAGE QUALITY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70249146519     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2522081457     Document Type: Article

References (16)

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. (Pubitemid 41023419)
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. Pisano ED, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246(2):376-383.
4. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS breast imaging reporting and data system. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
5. Agresti A. Describing contingency tables. In: Categorical data analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, 2002.
6. Begg CB, Gray R. Calculation of polytomous logistic regression parameters using individualized regressions. Biometrika 1984;71(1):11-18.
7. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ. Screen-film and digital mammography: image quality and radiation dose considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38(4):871-898. (Pubitemid 30640072)
8. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234(2):353-362.
9. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 2006;33(3):719-736. (Pubitemid 43320175)
10. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 2000;216(3):820-830. (Pubitemid 30660860)
11. Williams MB, Yaffe MJ, Maidment AD, Martin MC, Seibert JA, Pisano ED. Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 2006;3(8):589-608.
12. Carney PA, Miglioreti 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.]
13. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276(1):33-38. (Pubitemid 26231053)
14. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(1):1-10. (Pubitemid 351664941)
15. Kopans DB. DMIST: technologic or observer variability? [letter]. Radiology 2008;248(2):703-704.
16. Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Hendrich RE, et al. Letter to the editor [response]. Radiology 2008;248:703-704.