Use of prior mammograms in the transition to digital mammography: A performance and cost analysis

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 60-65

  Taylor Phillips, S ^a   Wallis, M G ^b   Duncan, A ^c   Gale, A G ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c University Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^d LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast screening; Diagnostic performance; Digital mammography; Previous mammograms

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVICE RECALL; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 84855537540     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.025     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Roelofs AAJ, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, et al. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 2007;242:70-7. (Pubitemid 44956010)
2. Varela C, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R. Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:248-55. (Pubitemid 41483025)
3. Thurfjell MG, Vitak B, Azavedo E, Svane G, Thurfjell E. Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 2000;41:52-6.
4. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1173-7. (Pubitemid 35204369)
5. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002;223:483-8. (Pubitemid 34454330)
6. Taylor-Phillips S, Wallis MG, Duncan A, Gale AG. Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography? Eur Radiol 2009;19:1890-6.
7. Chakraborty DP. Jackknife Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Software version 1.0 [computer software]. Available at: www.devchakraborty.com [accessed on 01.07.09], 2009.
8. Chakraborty DP, Yoon H. JAFROC analysis revisited: figure of merit considerations for human observer studies. In: Sahiner B, Manning DJ, editors. Medical imaging: image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment: 2009. Proceedings of SPIE medical imaging, vol. 7263. Washington, USA: SPIE; 2009.
9. Gur D, Rockette HE. Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. Acad Radiol 2008;15:1312-5.
10. Berbaum KS, Franken Jr EA, Dorfman DD, et al. Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol 1990;25:133-40. (Pubitemid 20072671)
11. Chakraborty DP. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 2008;15:1554-66.
12. Chakraborty DP. Jackknife Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Software version 2.3a [computer software]. Available at: www.devchakraborty.com [accessed on 01.07.09], 2008.
13. The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Breast screening programme, England 2008-09. Leeds, UK: The NHS Information Centre; 2010.
14. Legood R, Gray A. A cost comparison of full field digital mammography (FFDM) with film-screen mammography in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0403. Sheffield, UK: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2004.
15. Hamermesh DS. Shirking or productive schmoozing: wages and the allocation of time at work. Ind Labor Relat Rev 1990:121-33.
16. The NHS Staff Council. NHS terms and conditions of service handbook Pay Circular (AforC) 2/2010: amendment number 17. Leeds, UK: The NHS Confederation; 2010.
17. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent; 2006.
18. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS breast screening programme [online]. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/ breastscreen/index.html#cost [accessed 14.05.10], 2007.
19. Aro AR, Pilvikki Absetz S, Van Elderen TM, Van der Ploeg E, van der Kamp LJT. False-positive findings in mammography screening induces shortterm distress-breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1089-97. (Pubitemid 30330906)
20. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health 2001;23:292-300. (Pubitemid 34087292)
21. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-4. (Pubitemid 24098238)
22. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films: one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48:414-21. (Pubitemid 23362577)
23. Mucci B, Athey G, Scarisbrick G. Double reading of screening mammograms: the use of a third reader to arbitrate on disagreements. Breast 1999;8:63-5. (Pubitemid 29355626)
24. Gale AG, Savage CJ, Pawley EF, Wilson ARM, Roebuck EJ. Breast screening: visual search and observer performance. In: Kundel HL, editor. Medical imaging: image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment: 1994, vol. 2166. Proceedings of SPIE medical imaging. Washington, USA: SPIE; 1994. p. 66-75.
25. Gale AG. PERFORMS - a self assessment scheme for radiologists in breast screening. Semin Breast Dis 2003;6(3):148-52. (Pubitemid 39127690)
26. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003;228:10-4. (Pubitemid 36736062)
27. Gur D, Bandos AI, Fuhrman CR, Klym AH, King JL, Rockette HE. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol 2007;14(1):49-53. (Pubitemid 44920377)