Literature DB >> 19546175

The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting.

E J Goldstraw1, I Castellano, S Ashley, S Allen.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify the effect of the installation of Premium View post-processing software on our mammographic reporting performance, in particular the effects on our recall rate, biopsy rate and cancer detection rate. The case notes and imaging of all patients discussed at the weekly indeterminate imaging multidisciplinary team meeting were reviewed retrospectively before, immediately after and at a delayed interval following the installation of Premium View post-processing software. Factors recorded included the mammographic abnormality, further investigations and final histology. The indeterminate mammogram rate increased significantly from a baseline of 5.7% (before Premium View) to 8.7% in the time period immediately after the installation of Premium View (p=0.002). The stereotactic biopsy rate also increased from 0.8% to 2.4% (p=0.001), with a significant increase in the overall cancer detection rate from 3.4% to 4.4% (p=0.02). In the follow-up period several months after the installation of Premium View, the indeterminate mammogram rate returned to a level similar to that before Premium View (6%; p=0.7). The stereotactic biopsy rate remained significantly higher at 1.6% (p=0.07), as did the overall cancer detection rate of 5.0% (p=0.003). In conclusion, the use of Premium View may lead to higher cancer detection rates, at the expense of an initial increase in recall rate. Although prospective studies are suggested, this result is of interest in light of the proposed installation of digital mammography across the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19546175      PMCID: PMC3473530          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/96554696

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  16 in total

Review 1.  Computer-aided diagnosis complements full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Diagn Imaging (San Franc)       Date:  1999-09

Review 2.  The current status of digital mammography.

Authors:  J J James
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.

Authors:  K-P Hermann; S Obenauer; M Funke; E H Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Digital mammography.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Donglin Zeng; Keith Muller; Stephen R Aylward; Sungwook Park; Cherie Kuzmiak; Marcia Koomen; Dag Pavic; Ruth Walsh; Jay Baker; Edgardo I Gimenez; Rita Freimanis
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations.

Authors:  Seung Ja Kim; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; Joo Hee Cha; Sun Mi Kim; Jung-Gi Im
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

Authors:  Elodia Cole; Etta D Pisano; Mary Brown; Cherie Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Hak Hee Kim; Roberta Jong; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  2 in total

1.  Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Roelant Visser; Wouter J H Veldkamp; David Beijerinck; Petra A M Bun; Jan J M Deurenberg; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; Klaas H Schuur; Miranda M Snoeren; Gerard J den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  A new full-field digital mammography system with and without the use of an advanced post-processing algorithm: comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Hye Shin Ahn; Sun Mi Kim; Mijung Jang; Bo La Yun; Bohyoung Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Jung Min Chang; Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon; Hye Young Choi
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.500

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.