Literature DB >> 22096222

Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.

E Keavey1, N Phelan, A M O'Connell, F Flanagan, A O'Doherty, A Larke, A M Connors.   

Abstract

This study compares the clinical performance of three digital mammography system types in a breast cancer screening programme. 28 digital mammography systems from three different vendors were included in the study. The retrospective analysis included 238 182 screening examinations of females aged between 50 and 64 years over a 3-year period. All images were double read and assigned a result according to a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Females with a positive result were recalled for further assessment imaging and biopsy if necessary. Clinical performance in terms of cancer detection rate was analysed and the results presented. No statistically significant difference was found between the three different mammography systems in a population-based screening programme, in terms of the overall cancer detection rate or in the detection of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. This was shown in both prevalent and subsequent screening examination categories. The results demonstrate comparable cancer detection performance for the three imaging system types operational in the screening programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22096222      PMCID: PMC3587096          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/29747759

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


  15 in total

1.  Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland.

Authors:  P Baldelli; J McCullagh; N Phelan; F Flanagan
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing.

Authors:  M J Gardner; D G Altman
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-03-15

3.  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

4.  Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.

Authors:  B Lazzari; G Belli; C Gori; M Rosselli Del Turco
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.

Authors:  Colette M Shaw; Fidema L Flanagan; Helen M Fenlon; Michelle M McNicholas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.

Authors:  Sarah Vinnicombe; Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; Susan Shiel; Nick Perry; Isabel M Dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  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

8.  A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors.

Authors:  P Baldelli; N Phelan; G Egan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Jurgen Jacobs; Chantal Van Ongeval; Filip Claus; Valerie Celis; Catherine Geniets; Veerle Provost; Herman Pauwels; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

1.  Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Update on new technologies in digital mammography.

Authors:  Stephanie K Patterson; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-08-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.