Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mammography digitalization and computer-aided detection systems

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 197, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1492-1497

  Romero, Cristina ^a   Almenar, Asunción ^a   Pinto, Jose María ^a   Varela, Celia ^b   Muñoz, Enriqueta ^a   Botella, Miguel ^c  

^a HOSPITAL VIRGEN DE LA SALUD   (Spain)

^b Information Technologies   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Computer aided detection; Digital; Mammography; Screen film

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION SYSTEM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 82455194902     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3408     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Área de Epidemiología Ambiental y Cáncer. Centro Nacional de Epidemiología. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. La situación del cáncer en España. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 2006
2. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880 (Pubitemid 32172576)
3. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884 (Pubitemid 37467596)
4. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program - the Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232:197-204 (Pubitemid 38787838)
5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
6. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A, et al. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in populationbased screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244:708-718
7. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population- based screening program. Radiology 2009;253:353-358
8. Working Party of the Radiologists Quality Assurance Coordinating Group. Computer aided detection in mammography: publication no. 48. Sheffield, UK: National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, 2001
9. Taylor P, Potts HWW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44:798-807
10. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003; 227:192-200 (Pubitemid 36384199)
11. D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
12. Perneger T. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments? BMJ 1998; 316:1236-1238
13. Stomper PC, Geradts J, Edge SB, et al. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. AJR 2003;181:1679-1684 (Pubitemid 37466553)
14. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399-1409 (Pubitemid 46556325)
15. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR 2008; 190:854-859 (Pubitemid 351571504)
16. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan M, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1675-1684
17. Houssami N, Given-Wilson R. Incorporating new technologies into clinical practice without evidence of effectiveness in prospective studies: computer-aided detection (CAD) in breast screening reinforces the need for better initial evaluation. Breast 2007; 16:219-221 (Pubitemid 46796862)
18. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2005; 237:437-443 (Pubitemid 41507877)