Literature DB >> 20228048

The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.

T Svahn1, I Andersson, D Chakraborty, S Svensson, D Ikeda, D Förnvik, S Mattsson, A Tingberg, S Zackrisson.   

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography (DM), single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and BT combined with the opposite DM view. Patients with subtle lesions were selected to undergo BT examinations. Two radiologists who are non-participants in the study and have experience in using DM and BT determined the locations and extents of lesions in the images. Five expert mammographers interpreted the cases using the free-response paradigm. The task was to mark and rate clinically reportable findings suspicious for malignancy and clinically relevant benign findings. The marks were scored with reference to the outlined regions into lesion localization or non-lesion localization, and analysed by the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic method. The analysis yielded statistically significant differences between the combined modality and dual-view DM (p < 0.05). No differences were found between single-view BT and dual-view DM or between single-view BT and the combined modality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20228048      PMCID: PMC2911156          DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry        ISSN: 0144-8420            Impact factor:   0.972


  12 in total

1.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds.

Authors:  F O Bochud; J F Valley; F R Verdun; C Hessler; P Schnyder
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC).

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms.

Authors:  D Laming; R Warren
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  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

8.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Tor D Tosteson; Christine A Kogel; Helene M Nagy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.959

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.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Authors:  Ingvar Andersson; Debra M Ikeda; Sophia Zackrisson; Mark Ruschin; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  28 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

Authors:  Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis : technical principles, current clinical relevance and future perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  ROCView: prototype software for data collection in jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  J Thompson; P Hogg; S Thompson; D Manning; K Szczepura
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors:  S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Patricia Ruppel; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study.

Authors:  Fabienne Thibault; Clarisse Dromain; Catherine Breucq; Corinne S Balleyguier; Caroline Malhaire; Luc Steyaert; Anne Tardivon; Enrica Baldan; Harir Drevon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density.

Authors:  Sung Ui Shin; Jung Min Chang; Min Sun Bae; Su Hyun Lee; Nariya Cho; Mirinae Seo; Won Hwa Kim; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.