PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19-92 years). Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided 80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively. RESULTS: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy for cancer diagnosis of digital mammography with soft-copy interpretation with that of screen-film mammography for each digital equipment manufacturer, by using results of biopsy and follow-up as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary HIPAA-compliant Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was approved by the institutional review board of each study site, and informed consent was obtained. The approvals and consent included use of data for future HIPAA-compliant retrospective research. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network DMIST collected screening mammography studies performed by using both digital and screen-film mammography in 49 528 women (mean age, 54.6 years; range, 19-92 years). Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fischer, Fuji, GE, and Hologic) were used. For each digital manufacturer, a cancer-enriched reader set of women screened with both digital and screen-film mammography in DMIST was constructed. Each reader set contained all cancer-containing studies known for each digital manufacturer at the time of reader set selection, together with a subset of negative and benign studies. For each reader set, six or 12 experienced radiologists attended two randomly ordered reading sessions 6 weeks apart. Each radiologist identified suspicious findings and rated suspicion of breast cancer in identified lesions by using a seven-point scale. Results were analyzed according to digital manufacturer by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity for soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Results for Hologic digital are not presented owing to the fact that few cancer cases were available. The implemented design provided 80% power to detect average AUC differences of 0.09, 0.08, and 0.06 for Fischer, Fuji, and GE, respectively. RESULTS: No significant difference in AUC, sensitivity, or specificity was found between Fischer, Fuji, and GE soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography. Large reader variations occurred with each modality. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were found between soft-copy digital and screen-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment.
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Bradley M Hemminger; Mary L Brown; R Eugene Johnston; Cherie M Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Rita I Freimanis; Mary Scott Soo; J A Baker; Ruth Walsh Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cherie M Kuzmiak; Gregory A Millnamow; Bahjat Qaqish; Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Marylee E Brown Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.173
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
Authors: Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Marylee E Brown; Stephen A Feig; Roberta A Jong; Andrew D A Maidment; Melinda J Staiger; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Rita I Freimanis; Nadine Lesko; Eric L Rosen; Ruth Walsh; Margaret Williford; M Patricia Braeuning Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Weijie Chen; Elodia Cole; Robert Ochs; Nicholas Petrick; Etta D Pisano; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson; Kyle J Myers Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2019-01-21
Authors: Rachel M Gonzalez; Don S Daly; Ruimin Tan; Jeffrey R Marks; Richard C Zangar Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Craig K Abbey; Brandon D Gallas; John M Boone; Loren T Niklason; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Elodia B Cole; Zheng Zhang; Helga S Marques; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Etta D Pisano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.959