Malignancy detection in digital mammograms. Important reader characteristics and required case numbers

Academic Radiology

Volumn 17, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1409-1413

  Reed, Warren M ^a   Lee, Warwick B ^b   Cawson, Jennifer N ^c   Brennan, Patrick C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b CANCER INSTITUTE NSW   (Australia)

^c St Vincent's BreastScreen   (Australia)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Digital mammography; Observer performance; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; JOB EXPERIENCE; LUMINANCE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AUSTRALIA; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 77957661891     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.06.016     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. NLM and NIH. Breast cancer, 2009. Available online at: Accessed July 5, 2010. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/breastcancer.html.
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality books, breast, 2007. Available online at: Accessed July 5, 2010. http://www.womhealth.org.au/studentfactsheets/breastcancer.htm.
3. Office for National Statistics. Female breast cancer incidence and mortality, England, 1971-2005. Available online at: Accessed July 5, 2010. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=575.
4. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer. World Cancer Report, 2003.
5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Cancer Australia & AustralasianAssociation of Cancer Registries 2008. Cancer survival and prevalence in Australia: cancers diagnosed from 1982 to 2004. Cancer Series no. 42. Cat. no. CAN 38. Canberra, AustraliaI: IARC Press Lyon; AIHW.
6. UK Cancer Research. CancerStats key facts on breast cancer, 2008. Available online at: Accessed July 5, 2010. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast.
7. Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics registrations: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2005, England. Series MB1 no.36. London: Office for National Statistics.
8. Beam C.A., Krupinski E.A., Kundel H.L., et al. The place of medical image perception in 21st-century health care. J Am Coll Radiol 2006, 3:409-412. [review].
9. McCarthy E., Brennan P.C. Viewing conditions for diagnostic images in three major Dublin hospitals: a comparison with WHO and CEC recommendations. Br J Radiol 2003, 76:94-97.
10. Brennan P.C., McEntee M., Evanoff M., et al. Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:W177-W180.
11. Reed W., Poulos A., Rickard M., et al. Reader practice in mammography screen reporting in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009, 53:530-537.
12. Hart D, Wall BF. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental x-ray examinations. NRPB-W4 Report. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board.
13. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 103. Recommendations of the ICRP. Ann ICRP 2007, 37:2-4.
14. Law J., Faulkner K., Young K.C., et al. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 2007, 80:261-266.
15. Saarenmaa I., Salminen T., Geiger U., et al. The visibility of cancer on previous mammograms in retrospective review. Clin Radiol 2001, 56:40-43.
16. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Quality Mammography Standards. 1997 Final Rule 21 CRF parts 16 & 900 [Docket no. 95N-0192]. RIN 0910-AA24 ed. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
17. National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer-National Accreditation Requirements 1994, National Accreditation Committee, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, Canberra, Australia.
18. Pritchard J. Quality assurance guidelines for mammography. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. London, UK; 1989.
19. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Quality assuranceguidelines for radiologists. 1997 Publication No. 15. Sheffield, UK: National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. London, UK; 1997.
20. Kan L., Olivotto I.A., Warren Burhenne L.J., et al. Standardised abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000, 215:563-567.
21. Rickard M., Taylor R., Page A., et al. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme. Breast 2006, 15:39-43.
22. Mushlin A.I., Kouides R.W., Shapiro D.E. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 1998, 14:143-153.
23. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:1840.
24. Rutter C.M., Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:443-450.