Literature DB >> 10807143

Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms.

D Laming1, R Warren.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Examination of figures from screening at several different centres, and from the incidence of interval cancers in those programmes, suggests that a single radiologist reading by him/herself would miss 16 to 31% of cancers detectable in the mammograms. This study investigates how the accuracy of breast cancer screening could be improved.
METHOD: Draw a comparison between screening for breast cancer and other inspection tasks that have been studied in the experimental psychological laboratory to suggest two low cost fixes that might improve the accuracy of breast cancer screening. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Radiologists should not work for more than half an hour at a time; (2) two radiologists double reading should inspect the same series of mammograms in inverse order; (3) there should be a clerical check to see whether the efficiency of detection decreases with time on task; and (4) a more sophisticated engineering of the screening procedure might be accomplished by assembling a library of mammograms for which the correct diagnosis is known. If these library mammograms were mixed randomly with those to be inspected in some suitable ratio, it would then be possible to provide the radiologist with immediate feedback on the accuracy of (some of) his/her diagnoses. From experimental studies of inspection tasks this should improve diagnostic accuracy. These recommendations, of course, require evaluation in field trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10807143     DOI: 10.1136/jms.7.1.24

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  7 in total

1.  The Medical Image Perception Society update on key issues for image perception research.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance.

Authors:  Antonius A J Roelofs; Sander van Woudenberg; Johannes D M Otten; Jan H C L Hendriks; Anke Bödicker; Carl J G Evertsz; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  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.

Authors:  T Svahn; I Andersson; D Chakraborty; S Svensson; D Ikeda; D Förnvik; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; S Zackrisson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  T M Svahn; D P Chakraborty; D Ikeda; S Zackrisson; Y Do; S Mattsson; I Andersson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Matilda Nergården; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.315

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.