Literature DB >> 20683600

Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography.

Katja Pinker1, Nicholas Perry, S Vinnicombe, S Shiel, M Weber.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).
METHODS: 185 patients underwent routine screening with SFM followed by further imaging using FFDM with consequent diagnosis of breast cancer. All SFM and soft-copy FFDM images were evaluated by two readers in an independent, retrospective review. The visualisation and conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality were recorded and graded using a four-level scale. Conspicuity of breast cancer was qualitatively evaluated. Breast density and conspicuity were correlated with histopathological diagnosis and inter-observer correlation was calculated.
RESULTS: Mixed Model ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between FFDM and SFM (p<0.001) and breast densities (p=0.009): conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality (p<0.001) and visualisation of the dominant mammographic feature (p<0.001) were significantly greater with FFDM than SFM. This held true for both readers and for all histopathological tumour types with no significant differences between each tumour type.
CONCLUSION: FFDM is significantly superior to SFM for conspicuity of screen-detected breast cancers for all histopathological types and breast densities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20683600     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1906-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  P Skaane; A Skjennald; K Young; E Egge; I Jebsen; E M Sager; B Scheel; E Søvik; A K Ertzaas; S Hofvind; M Abdelnoor
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.990

2.  Digital mammography: do we need to convert now?

Authors:  David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  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

6.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.

Authors:  Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Ciatto; Rita Bonardi; Francesca Martinelli; Barbara Lazzari; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings.

Authors:  Angela A Luck; Andrew J Evans; Jonathan J James; Emad A Rakha; E Claire Paish; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.

Authors:  H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Anabel Romero; Francesc Belvis; Mar Sánchez; Joana Ferrer; Dolores Salas; Josefa Ibáñez; Alfonso Vega; Francesc Ferrer; M Soledad Laso; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Gábor Forrai; Eszter Kovács; Éva Ambrózay; Miklós Barta; Katalin Borbély; Zsolt Lengyel; Katalin Ormándi; Zoltán Péntek; Tasnádi Tünde; Éva Sebő
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 2.874

4.  Impact of full field digital mammography diagnosis for female patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Tuan Wang; Jian-Jun Shuai; Xing Li; Zhi Wen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.817

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.