Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis

Medical Devices: Evidence and Research

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 107-115

  Hilgerink, Marjolein P ^a   Hummel, Marjan J M ^b   Manohar, Srirang ^b   Vaartjes, Simon R ^a   Ijzerman, Maarten J ^b  

^a MEDISCH SPECTRUM TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomedical engineering; Breast cancer; Diagnostic imaging; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ADDED VALUES; AHP METHOD; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS; BREAST CANCER IMAGING; CLINICAL VALUE; DESIGN CHANGE; DETECTOR SENSITIVITY; DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EARLY-STAGE DIAGNOSIS; EXPERT PANELS; LOW COSTS; MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS; PA IMAGING; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON TECHNIQUE; PATIENT COMFORT; PHOTOACOUSTIC MAMMOSCOPE; RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHMS; RELATIVE IMPORTANCE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; X-RAY MAMMOGRAPHY;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; DISEASES; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; RATING; RESONANCE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELASTICITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OXYGEN SATURATION; PHOTOACOUSTIC IMAGING; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TWENTE PHOTOACOUSTIC MAMMOSCOPE; X RAY MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 80051709117     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11791470     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S20169     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Visser O, van Noord KJ, eds. Feiten + Fabels over kanker in Nederland. 1st ed. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Vereniging van Integrale Kankercentra; 2005.
2. National Institute for Clinical Exellence. Guidance on Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer. 1st ed. London, England: NHS; 2002.
3. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. European Communities: Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General; 2006.
4. Berg WA, Birdwell RL, Gombos EC, et al. Diagnostic Imaging: Breast. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys Inc; 2008.
5. Wang LV. Multiscale photoacoustic microscopy and computed tomography. Nat Photonics. 2009;3(9):503-509.
6. Ermilov SA, Khamapirad T, Conjusteau A, et al. Laser optoacoustic imaging system for detection of breast cancer. J Biomed Opt. 2009;14(2):024007.
7. Manohar S, Vaartjes SE, van Hespen JCG, et al. Initial results of in vivo non-invasive cancer imaging in the human breast using near-infrared photoacoustics. Opt Express. 2007;15(19):12277-12285.
8. Piras D, Wenfeng X, Steenbergen W, van Leeuwen TG, Manohar SG. Photoacoustic imaging of the breast using the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope: present status and future perspectives. Selected topics in quantum electronics, IEEE journal. 2010;16(4):730-739.
9. Hummel JM. Supporting medical technology development with the analytic hierarchy process. Groningen, the Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Faculty of Medical Sciences; Dissertation, 2001.
10. Pietzsch JB, Paté-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):36-44.
11. Cosh E, Girling A, Lilford R, McAteer H, Young T. Investing in new medical technologies: a decision framework. J Commercial Biotechnology. 2007;13(4):263-271.
12. Douw K, Vondeling H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: a survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2):177-183.
13. Guston DH, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society. 2002;24(1):93-109.
14. Douma KFL, Karsenberg K, Hummel JM, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):162-168.
15. Retèl VP, Hummel JM, van Harten WH. Early phase Technology Assessment of nanotechnology in oncology. Tumori. 2008;94(2):284-290.
16. Retèl VP, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Hummel JM, et al. Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in Coverage with Evidence Development: the case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):73-83.
17. Rip A. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture. 2006;15(4):349-365.
18. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
19. Hummel JM, van Rossum W, Verkerke GJ, Rakhorst G. Assessing medical technologies in development. A new paradigm of medical technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(4):1214-1219.
20. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. BI-RADS® Atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology (ACR); 2003.
21. Borstkanker. [homepage on the Internet]. The Netherlands: KWF Kankerbestrijding. [updated 2008 Aug 22; cited 2009 May 7]. Available from: http://www.kwfkankerbestrijding.nl/. Accessed May 7, 2009.
22. Hummel JM, van Rossum W, Verkerke GJ, Rakhorst G. The effects of team expert choice on group decision-making in collaborative new product development: a pilot study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2000;9(1-3):90-98.