Literature DB >> 23489759

Is full-field digital mammography more accurate than screen-film mammography in overall population screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fabiano H Souza1, Eliana M Wendland, Maria I Rosa, Carisi A Polanczyk.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for population-based breast cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A quantitative systematic review was performed including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies.
RESULTS: Ten studies (comprising 667,649 women, 82,573 of whom underwent SFM and FFDM) were included. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.92 (SE ± 0.06) for SFM and 0.91 (SE ± 0.11) for FFDM. The results in the random-effects model were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.24) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28-0.95) for SFM versus FFDM in all age and younger groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: FFDM is more accurate than SFM only in women less than 50 years old.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23489759     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.02.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  10 in total

1.  Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Agnes M F Fausto; M C Lopes; M C de Sousa; Tânia A C Furquim; Anderson W Mol; Fermin G Velasco
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Wenli Dong; Ying Xu; Ruth Etzioni; Yu Shen
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Geographic variation in volumetric breast density between screening regions in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Daniëlle van der Waal; Marleen J Emaus; Marije F Bakker; Gerard J den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer; Ruud M Pijnappel; Wouter B Veldhuis; André L M Verbeek; Carla H van Gils; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Breast cancer screening programs: Review of merits, demerits, and recent recommendations practiced across the world.

Authors:  Tajammal Abbas Shah; Shaista Salman Guraya
Journal:  J Microsc Ultrastruct       Date:  2016-11-28

6.  Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Soo Yeon Song; Boyoung Park; Seri Hong; Min Jung Kim; Eun Hye Lee; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.588

7.  Convolutional neural network for automated mass segmentation in mammography.

Authors:  Dina Abdelhafiz; Jinbo Bi; Reda Ammar; Clifford Yang; Sheida Nabavi
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 8.  [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].

Authors:  Soo Yeon Song; Seri Hong; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2021-01-31

9.  Is Age-targeted full-field digital mammography screening cost-effective in emerging countries? A micro simulation model.

Authors:  Fabiano Hahn Souza; Carísi Anne Polanczyk
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-07-31

Review 10.  Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuan-Anh Phi; Alberto Tagliafico; Nehmat Houssami; Marcel J W Greuter; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 4.430

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.