Literature DB >> 12553348

Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens.

Cherie M Kuzmiak1, Gregory A Millnamow, Bahjat Qaqish, Etta D Pisano, Elodia B Cole, Marylee E Brown.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to investigate whether full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is at least as accurate as screen-film mammography with respect to breast lesion characterization.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine breast surgical specimens were obtained by means of preoperative needle localization with surgical excision from 79 patients. The specimens were imaged with both screen-film mammography and FFDM. Six radiologists specialized in breast imaging analyzed both sets of images and characterized the visualized lesions on a five-point scale: 1, definitely not malignant; 2, probably not malignant; 3, possibly malignant; 4, probably malignant; and 5, definitely malignant. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the data was then performed to assess for differences between modalities in the radiologists' ability to predict breast malignancy.
RESULTS: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of breast malignancy in surgical biopsy specimens were not statistically significantly different for FFDM and screen-film mammography.
CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that with breast surgical specimens, FFDM is similar in diagnostic accuracy to screen-film mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12553348     DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80664-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  7 in total

Review 1.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects.

Authors:  U Fischer; K P Hermann; F Baum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-20       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Comparison of human observer performance of contrast-detail detection across multiple liquid crystal displays.

Authors:  Alice N Averbukh; David S Channin; Prasobsook Homhual
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

Authors:  Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Characterization of microcalcification: can digital monitor zooming replace magnification mammography in full-field digital mammography?

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Ji Hyun Youk; Seon Hyeong Choi; Mooyoung Han; Ki Keun Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-08-02       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick; Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Helga Marques; Michael A Cohen; Roberta A Jong; Gordon E Mawdsley; Kalpana M Kanal; Carl J D'Orsi; Murray Rebner; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications.

Authors:  M J Kim; J H Youk; D R Kang; S H Choi; J Y Kwak; E J Son; E-K Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Soft copy digital mammography.

Authors:  Hak Hee Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2005 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.