Literature DB >> 3628795

Breast cancer detection: one versus two views.

L W Bassett, D H Bunnell, R Jahanshahi, R H Gold, R D Arndt, J Linsman.   

Abstract

Mammographic examinations of 169 patients with 172 biopsy-proved carcinomas, and of 194 healthy subjects, were interpreted independently and retrospectively by three experienced mammographers, initially as single-view oblique examinations and 6 months later as two-view oblique-cephalocaudal examinations. For the single-view examinations of the cancer patients, 67% of the cancers were correctly recommended for biopsy, additional views were requested for 23%, and a "negative" interpretation was made for 10%. For the single-view examinations of healthy subjects, biopsy was recommended for 7% and additional views were recommended for 32%. For the two-view examinations of women with cancer, 80% of the cancers were correctly recommended for biopsy, additional views were requested for 4%, and a "negative" interpretation was made for 16%. For two-view examinations of healthy subjects, biopsy was recommended for 7% and additional views were requested for only 5%. The authors conclude that single-view screening should not be performed, because it would lead to an excessive number of "call-back" examinations of healthy patients, producing additional cost and anxiety that would outweigh any theoretical benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3628795     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.165.1.3628795

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  10 in total

1.  Computer-aided detection systems for breast masses: comparison of performances on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Ge; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Chuan Zhou; Yi-Ta Wu; Chintana Paramagul; Yiheng Zhang
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Feasibility of volume-of-interest (VOI) scanning technique in cone beam breast CT--a preliminary study.

Authors:  Lingyun Chen; Chris C Shaw; Mustafa C Altunbas; Chao-Jen Lai; Xinming Liu; Tao Han; Tianpeng Wang; Wei T Yang; Gary J Whitman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A comparative audit of prevalent, incident and interval cancers in the Avon breast screening programme.

Authors:  P A Sylvester; M N Vipond; E Kutt; J D Davies; A J Webb; J R Farndon
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  A licence for breast cancer screening?

Authors:  J B Witcombe
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-03-26

6.  One and two view mammography in breast cancer. Many subjects in trial were not asked for consent.

Authors:  H Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-24

7.  What should be done about interval breast cancers?

Authors:  S Field; M J Michell; M G Wallis; A R Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-01-28

8.  Film-screen mammography: comparison of views.

Authors:  L W Bassett; D H Bunnell; R H Gold; R Jahanshahi
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 1.798

9.  Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's north western region.

Authors:  C B Woodman; A G Threlfall; C R Boggis; P Prior
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-01-28

10.  The National Breast Screening Programme: the first 5,000 women screened in Northern Ireland.

Authors:  A J O'Doherty; J G Crothers; C W Majury
Journal:  Ulster Med J       Date:  1991-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.