Literature DB >> 18227537

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

Etta D Pisano1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy of digital versus film mammography in population subgroups of the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) defined by combinations of age, menopausal status, and breast density, by using either biopsy results or follow-up information as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: DMIST included women who underwent both digital and film screening mammography. Institutional review board approval at all participating sites and informed consent from all participating women in compliance with HIPAA was obtained for DMIST and this retrospective analysis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for each modality were compared within each subgroup evaluated (age < 50 vs 50-64 vs >or= 65 years, dense vs nondense breasts at mammography, and pre- or perimenopausal vs postmenopausal status for the two younger age cohorts [10 new subgroups in toto]) while controlling for multiple comparisons (P < .002 indicated a significant difference). All DMIST cancers were evaluated with respect to mammographic detection method (digital vs film vs both vs neither), mammographic lesion type (mass, calcifications, or other), digital machine type, mammographic and pathologic size and diagnosis, existence of prior mammographic study at time of interpretation, months since prior mammographic study, and compressed breast thickness.
RESULTS: Thirty-three centers enrolled 49 528 women. Breast cancer status was determined for 42,760 women, the group included in this study. Pre- or perimenopausal women younger than 50 years who had dense breasts at film mammography comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (AUCs, 0.79 vs 0.54; P = .0015). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-based sensitivity in this subgroup was 0.59 for digital and 0.27 for film mammography. AUCs were not significantly different in any of the other subgroups. For women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts, the AUC showed a nonsignificant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025).
CONCLUSION: Digital mammography performed significantly better than film for pre- and perimenopausal women younger than 50 years with dense breasts, but film tended nonsignificantly to perform better for women aged 65 years or older with fatty breasts. (c) RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18227537      PMCID: PMC2659550          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070200

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


  7 in total

1.  Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate.

Authors:  A Y Toledano; C Gatsonis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.571

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

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; 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
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Digital and film mammography.

Authors:  John D Keen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-02-16       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Digital mammography: what next?

Authors:  Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

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

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; 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
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

  7 in total
  115 in total

1.  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

2.  Diagnostic performance of a Near-Infrared Breast Imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone.

Authors:  F Collettini; J C Martin; F Diekmann; E Fallenberg; F Engelken; S Ponder; T J Kroencke; B Hamm; A Poellinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnosing breast masses in digital mammography using feature selection and ensemble methods.

Authors:  Shu-Ting Luo; Bor-Wen Cheng
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 4.  [Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems].

Authors:  F Semturs; E Sturm; R Gruber; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Clinical application of low-dose phase contrast breast CT: methods for the optimization of the reconstruction workflow.

Authors:  S Pacilè; F Brun; C Dullin; Y I Nesterest; D Dreossi; S Mohammadi; M Tonutti; F Stacul; D Lockie; F Zanconati; A Accardo; G Tromba; T E Gureyev
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 3.732

6.  Quantra™ should be considered a tool for two-grade scale mammographic breast density classification.

Authors:  Ernest U Ekpo; Mark F McEntee; Mary Rickard; Patrick C Brennan; Jyotsna Kunduri; Delgermaa Demchig; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

9.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 10.  Looking back at prospective studies.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.