Radiology · 2003 · 222 citations · 8 references
MedicineRadiologyCancer ScreeningDiagnostic ImagingDigital ImagingBreast Cancer ImagingBreast ImagingCancer DetectionCancer DiagnosisMedical ImagingTumor DetectionFull-field Digital MammographyLesion ConspicuityMammographyMcnemar's TestPaired Proportions AnalysisPositive Predictive ValueScreen-film MammographyScreening Mammography
PURPOSE: To compare screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-field digital and screen-film mammography were performed in 3,683 women aged 50-69 years. Two standard views of each breast were acquired with each modality. Images underwent independent double reading with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates and positive predictive values were calculated. Cancer detection rates determined with both modalities were compared by using the McNemar test for paired proportions. Retrospective side-by-side analysis for conspicuity of cancers was performed by an external independent radiologist group with experience in both modalities. RESULTS: In 3,683 cases, 31 cancers were detected. Screen-film mammography depicted 28 (0.76%) malignancies, and full-field digital mammography depicted 23 (0.62%) malignancies. The difference between cancer detection rates was not significant (P =.23). The recall rate for full-field digital mammography (4.6%; 168 of 3,683 cases) was slightly higher than that for screen-film mammography (3.5%; 128 of 3,683 cases). The positive predictive value based on needle biopsy results was 46% for screen-film mammography and 39% for full-field digital mammography. Side-by-side image comparison for cancer conspicuity led to classification of 19 cancers as equal for probability of malignancy, six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at screen-film mammography, and six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at full-field digital mammography. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between screen-film and full-field digital mammography. Cancer conspicuity was equal with both modalities. Full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading is comparable to screen-film mammography in population-based screening.
8
Variability in Radiologists' Interpretations of Mammograms
Joann G. Elmore, Carolyn K. Wells, Debra Hope Howard et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 1994 · 604 citations · Full text
Beyond randomized controlled trials
L�szl� Tab�r, Bedrich Viták, Ming‐Fang Yen et al. · Cancer · 2001 · 558 citations