PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of old mammograms on the specificity and sensitivity of radiologists in mammography screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty sets of screening mammograms were examined by 3 experienced screeners twice: once without and once in comparison with older mammograms. The films came from a population-based screening done during the first half of 1994 and comprised all 35 cancers detected during screening in 1994, 12/24 interval cancers, 14/34 cancers detected in the following screening and 89 normal mammograms. RESULTS: Without old mammograms, the screeners detected an average of 40.3 cancers (range 37-42), with a specificity of 87% (85-88%). With old mammograms, the screeners detected 37.7 cancers (range 34-42) with a specificity of 96% (94-99%). The change in detection rate was not significant. However, the increase in specificity was significant for each screener (p = 0.0002-0.03). CONCLUSION: Mammography screening with old mammograms available for comparison decreased the false-positive recall rate. The effect on sensitivity, however, was unclear.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of old mammograms on the specificity and sensitivity of radiologists in mammography screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty sets of screening mammograms were examined by 3 experienced screeners twice: once without and once in comparison with older mammograms. The films came from a population-based screening done during the first half of 1994 and comprised all 35 cancers detected during screening in 1994, 12/24 interval cancers, 14/34 cancers detected in the following screening and 89 normal mammograms. RESULTS: Without old mammograms, the screeners detected an average of 40.3 cancers (range 37-42), with a specificity of 87% (85-88%). With old mammograms, the screeners detected 37.7 cancers (range 34-42) with a specificity of 96% (94-99%). The change in detection rate was not significant. However, the increase in specificity was significant for each screener (p = 0.0002-0.03). CONCLUSION: Mammography screening with old mammograms available for comparison decreased the false-positive recall rate. The effect on sensitivity, however, was unclear.
Authors: Paras Lakhani; Elliot D Menschik; Alberto F Goldszal; Joseph P Murray; Mark G Weiner; Curtis P Langlotz Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Ryan C May; Jeanine Matuszewski; J Michael Bowling; Molly P Jarman; Bruce F Schroeder Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christiane M Hakim; Marie I Anello; Cathy S Cohen; Marie A Ganott; Amy H Lu; Ronald L Perrin; Ratan Shah; Marion Lee Spangler; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jessica H Hayward; Kimberly M Ray; Dorota J Wisner; John Kornak; Weiwen Lin; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432