The diagnostic accuracy of digitized mammography

Iranian Journal of Radiology

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 71-76

  Guiti, M ^a   Azizian, Amir Reza ^a   Alam, N Riyahi ^b   Shakiba, M ^a  

^a TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Digitized mammography; Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77953393662     PISSN: 17351065     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. American Cancer Society, Cancer facts & figures 2006. 2006; [56 screens]. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/S2TT/ GAFF2006PWSecured.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2007.
2. Cancer Institute, Imam Khomeini hospital. Available at: http://www.isnatums.com/news/archives/health/000973.php.
3. Iranian Society of Gynecological Oncology. Available at: http://www.irsgo.org/article5_fa.php.
4. Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, Niklason LT. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-observer performance study. Radiology 2005 Oct;237(1):37-44.
5. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002 Sep 3; 137:347-60.
6. Institute of Medicine. Saving women's lives: integration and innovation: a framework for progress in early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Washington DC: National Academics Press; 2005
7. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672-80.
8. Buist DSM, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1432-40.
9. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, 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;138:168-75.
10. 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;276:33-8.
11. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 1976;37:2486-92.
12. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-9.
13. Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, Gunasekara A, English DR, McCredie MR, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:886-94.
14. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:2444-50.
15. Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992;183:629-30.
16. Pisano ED, Yaffe MI, Hemminger BM, Hendrick RE, Niklason LT, Maidment AD, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:266-80.
17. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234:353-61.
18. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman GD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2005 Mar;293(10):1245-56.
19. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 1998.
20. Kopans D. Breast Imaging. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
21. Park SH, Goo JM, Jo CH. Receiver operating characteristic (ROG) curve: practical review for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):11-8.
22. James JJ. The current status of digital mammography. Clin Radiol 2004 Jan;59(1):1-10.
23. Fischer U, Hermann K.P, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006;16:38-44.
24. Pickard JM. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC), curves to evaluate digital mammography. San Antonio, Texas: University of Texas Health Science Center. Available at: http://ric.uthscsa.edu/ personalpages/lancaste/DI2_projects_2004/JP_project.pdf
25. Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radilogy. Radiology 2003;229:3-8.
26. Bonardi R, Amnrogetti D, Ciatto S, Gentile E, Lazzari B, Mantellini P, et al. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value. Eur J Radiol 2005 Aug;55(2):258-63.
27. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrich E, Yaffe M, Baum JR, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
28. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Issacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001 Mar;218(3):873-80.
29. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Issacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 Sep;179(3):671-7.
30. Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Barry MM, Ganobcik SN, Cardenosa G. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence. AJR 1999;173:889-94.