A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 67, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 976-981

  Michell, M J ^a   Iqbal, A ^a   Wasan, R K ^a   Evans, D R ^a   Peacock, C ^a   Lawinski, C P ^a   Douiri, A ^b,e   Wilson, R ^c   Whelehan, P ^d  

^a KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^e GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM SCREEN MAMMOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFT TISSUE INJURY;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865722006     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: 1365229X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.009     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. N.M. Hambly, M.M. McNicholas, and N. Phelan Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program AJR Am J Roentgenol 193 2009 1010 1018
2. B. Heddson, K. Rönnow, and M. Olsson Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program Eur J Radiol 64 2007 419 425
3. L.T. Niklason, B.T. Christian, and L.E. Niklason Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging Radiology 205 1997 399 406
4. I. Andersson, D.M. Ikeda, and S. Zackrisson Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings Eur Radiol 18 2008 2817 2825
5. S.P. Poplack, T.D. Tosteson, and C.A. Kogel Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography AJR Am J Roentgenol 189 2007 616 623
6. T. Svahn, I. Andersson, and D. Chakraborty The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study Radiat Prot Dosimetry 139 2010 113 117
7. G. Gennaro, A. Toledano, and C. Di Maggio Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study Eur Radiol 20 2010 1545 1553
8. D. Gur, G.S. Abrams, and D.M. Chough Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study AJR Am J Roentgenol 193 2009 586 591
9. C.M. Hakim, D.M. Chough, and M.A. Ganott Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review AJR Am J Roentgenol 195 2010 W172 W176
10. W.F. Good, G.S. Abrams, and V.J. Catullo Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 2008 865 869
11. Digital breast tomosynthesis September 2010 NHSBSP Sheffield
12. The commissioning and routine testing of mammographic X-ray systems IPEM report 1994 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine York
13. The Commissioning and Routine Testing of Full Field Digital Mammography Systems version 3 NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604 April 2009 NHSBSP Sheffield
14. Quality assurance guidelines for medical physics services, in NHSBSP Publication June 2005 Sheffield: National Breast Screening Quality Assurance Coordinating Group for Physics
15. National Centre for the Coordination of Physics in Mammography (NCCPM).
16. A.J. Maxwell, N.T. Ridley, and G. Rubin The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification Clin Radiol 64 2009 624 627
17. J.A. Hanley, and B.J. McNeil The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve Radiology 143 1982 29 36
18. J.A. Hanley, and B.J. McNeil A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases Radiology 148 1983 839 843
19. S. Corporation Stata statistical software 2009 Stata: Release 11. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP College Station
20. J. Law Breast dose from magnification films in mammography Br J Radiol 78 2005 816 820