Literature DB >> 16169887

Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Etta D Pisano1, Constantine Gatsonis, Edward Hendrick, Martin Yaffe, Janet K Baum, Suddhasatta Acharyya, Emily F Conant, Laurie L Fajardo, Lawrence Bassett, Carl D'Orsi, Roberta Jong, Murray Rebner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Film mammography has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer in women with radiographically dense breasts. We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitations.
METHODS: A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results.
RESULTS: In the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar (difference between methods in the area under the ROC curve, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18). However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years (difference in the area under the curve, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002), women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts on mammography (difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00008346.) Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16169887     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  422 in total

1.  Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Authors:  Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Molecular imaging using light-absorbing imaging agents and a clinical optical breast imaging system--a phantom study.

Authors:  Stephanie M W Y van de Ven; Niculae Mincu; Jean Brunette; Guobin Ma; Mario Khayat; Debra M Ikeda; Sanjiv S Gambhir
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Janie M Lee; Chung Y Kong; Pamela M McMahon; Michael E Gilmore; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification.

Authors:  D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; S Di Michele; P Tuttobene; C Fantò; M Valentini; M Gentilini; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  E Keavey; N Phelan; A M O'Connell; F Flanagan; A O'Doherty; A Larke; A M Connors
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens.

Authors:  C M Pagliari; T Hoang; M Reddy; L S Wilkinson; J D Poloniecki; R M Given-Wilson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen.

Authors:  Tomas Cortadellas; Paula Argacha; Juan Acosta; Jordi Rabasa; Ricardo Peiró; Margarita Gomez; Laura Rodellar; Sandra Gomez; Alejandra Navarro-Golobart; Sonia Sanchez-Mendez; Milagros Martinez-Medina; Mireia Botey; Carlos Muñoz-Ramos; Manel Xiberta
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  High-resolution, low-dose phase contrast X-ray tomography for 3D diagnosis of human breast cancers.

Authors:  Yunzhe Zhao; Emmanuel Brun; Paola Coan; Zhifeng Huang; Aniko Sztrókay; Paul Claude Diemoz; Susanne Liebhardt; Alberto Mittone; Sergei Gasilov; Jianwei Miao; Alberto Bravin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.