Literature DB >> 15961755

American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.

Etta D Pisano1, Constantine A Gatsonis, Martin J Yaffe, R Edward Hendrick, Anna N A Tosteson, Dennis G Fryback, Lawrence W Bassett, Janet K Baum, Emily F Conant, Roberta A Jong, Murray Rebner, Carl J D'Orsi.   

Abstract

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) and each participating site and by the IRB and the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute. The study was monitored by an independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board, which received interim analyses of data to ensure that the study would be terminated early if indicated by trends in the outcomes. The ACRIN, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute, conducted the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) primarily to compare the diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography in asymptomatic women presenting for screening for breast cancer. Over the 25.5 months of enrollment, a total of 49 528 women were included at the 33 participating sites, which used five different types of digital mammography equipment. All participants underwent both screen-film and digital mammography. The digital and screen-film mammograms of each subject were independently interpreted by two radiologists. If findings of either examination were interpreted as abnormal, subsequent work-up occurred according to the recommendations of the interpreting radiologist. Breast cancer status was determined at biopsy or follow-up mammography 11-15 months after study entry. In addition to the measurement of diagnostic accuracy by using the interpretations of mammograms at the study sites, DMIST included evaluations of the relative cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life effects of digital versus screen-film mammography. Six separate reader studies using the de-identified archived DMIST mammograms will also assess the diagnostic accuracy of each of the individual digital mammography machines versus screen-film mammography machines, the effect of breast density on diagnostic accuracy of digital and screen-film mammography, and the effect of different rates of breast cancer on the diagnostic accuracy in a reader study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15961755     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2362050440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  35 in total

1.  Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Margarita Zuley; Janet K Baum; Helga S Marques
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 2.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 2.374

6.  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

Review 7.  Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update.

Authors:  Mackenzie S Fuller; Christoph I Lee; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 5.456

8.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 9.  Looking back at prospective studies.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  An automated approach for estimation of breast density.

Authors:  John J Heine; Michael J Carston; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Fang-Fang Wu; Vernon Shane Pankratz; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.