Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone
Objectives Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone. Methods Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded r...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2012-02, Vol.22 (2), p.350-357 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 357 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 350 |
container_title | European radiology |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Collettini, F. Martin, J. C. Diekmann, F. Fallenberg, E. Engelken, F. Ponder, S. Kroencke, T. J. Hamm, B. Poellinger, A. |
description | Objectives
Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone.
Methods
Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded radiologists independently first reviewed the mammograms alone. Readers subsequently reviewed the mammograms in combination with NIBI. The diagnostic benefit of NIBI as an adjunct to mammography was determined by performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses for each reader based on BI-RADS categories (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and LOS (level of suspicion) scores. Additionally, a multireader-multicase (ROC) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out.
Results
For the LOS-based analysis, the combination of mammography and NIBI resulted in a slightly larger area under the curve (AUC) for all four readers. The analysis based on BI-RADS categories also demonstrated a slight increase in AUC for three readers for the combination of mammography and NIBI compared with mammography alone. For the fourth reader, AUC was smaller for the combination compared with mammography alone. Neither for the separate ROC-analyses nor for the ANOVA, significant differences between the two methods were obtained.
Conclusions
The combination of mammography and NIBI did not perform significantly better than mammography alone.
Key Points
The intrinsic contrast provided by optical breast imaging may be inadequate
We found slightly (but nonsignificant) higher accuracy for optical imaging and mammography compared with mammography alone.
Contrast agents might be necessary to improve the performance of optical breast imaging |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1021639181</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2693700181</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4362d6acc68b29a7f6710fd4ccabec2e2d7dc9ef1376fe8acd59bc8b15cb3cb83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhi1U1F2gP6CXylLPBo-djeMj2tIPCYkLSNyiiTMOWW3sxU4q9t83aBfUHnqawzzvO5qHsc8gL0FKc5Wl1FoKCSCUMqVQJ2wJhVYCZFV8YEtpdSWMtcWCneW8kVJaKMxHtlBgC7MCtWQv33rsQsxj7_iOko9pwOCIR8-RB8Ik-uATJmp5kwjzyPsBuz50PO_zSAPHzLHdTMGNfIx8wGGIXcLd057_ppSnzB9Fwv0_C9zGQBfs1OM206fjPGcP32_u1z_F7d2PX-vrW-G0gVEUulRtic6VVaMsGl8akL4tnMOGnCLVmtZZ8qBN6alC165s46oGVq7Rrqn0Oft66N2l-DxRHutNnFKYT9YgFZTaQgUzBQfKpZhzIl_v0vxo2s9Q_eq6PriuZ9f1q-tazZkvx-apGah9T7zJnQF1APK8Ch2lv0__r_UPI3GMuQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1021639181</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Collettini, F. ; Martin, J. C. ; Diekmann, F. ; Fallenberg, E. ; Engelken, F. ; Ponder, S. ; Kroencke, T. J. ; Hamm, B. ; Poellinger, A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Collettini, F. ; Martin, J. C. ; Diekmann, F. ; Fallenberg, E. ; Engelken, F. ; Ponder, S. ; Kroencke, T. J. ; Hamm, B. ; Poellinger, A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone.
Methods
Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded radiologists independently first reviewed the mammograms alone. Readers subsequently reviewed the mammograms in combination with NIBI. The diagnostic benefit of NIBI as an adjunct to mammography was determined by performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses for each reader based on BI-RADS categories (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and LOS (level of suspicion) scores. Additionally, a multireader-multicase (ROC) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out.
Results
For the LOS-based analysis, the combination of mammography and NIBI resulted in a slightly larger area under the curve (AUC) for all four readers. The analysis based on BI-RADS categories also demonstrated a slight increase in AUC for three readers for the combination of mammography and NIBI compared with mammography alone. For the fourth reader, AUC was smaller for the combination compared with mammography alone. Neither for the separate ROC-analyses nor for the ANOVA, significant differences between the two methods were obtained.
Conclusions
The combination of mammography and NIBI did not perform significantly better than mammography alone.
Key Points
The intrinsic contrast provided by optical breast imaging may be inadequate
We found slightly (but nonsignificant) higher accuracy for optical imaging and mammography compared with mammography alone.
Contrast agents might be necessary to improve the performance of optical breast imaging</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21947512</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Area Under Curve ; Biopsy ; Breast - pathology ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Experimental ; Female ; Hemoglobin ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Imaging ; Infrared imaging systems ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Lasers ; Mammography ; Mammography - methods ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neuroradiology ; Patients ; Radiology ; Radiology - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; ROC Curve ; Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared - methods ; Tomography ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasound ; Variance analysis ; X-Rays</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2012-02, Vol.22 (2), p.350-357</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2011</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4362d6acc68b29a7f6710fd4ccabec2e2d7dc9ef1376fe8acd59bc8b15cb3cb83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4362d6acc68b29a7f6710fd4ccabec2e2d7dc9ef1376fe8acd59bc8b15cb3cb83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21947512$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Collettini, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diekmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallenberg, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelken, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponder, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroencke, T. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poellinger, A.</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone.
Methods
Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded radiologists independently first reviewed the mammograms alone. Readers subsequently reviewed the mammograms in combination with NIBI. The diagnostic benefit of NIBI as an adjunct to mammography was determined by performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses for each reader based on BI-RADS categories (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and LOS (level of suspicion) scores. Additionally, a multireader-multicase (ROC) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out.
Results
For the LOS-based analysis, the combination of mammography and NIBI resulted in a slightly larger area under the curve (AUC) for all four readers. The analysis based on BI-RADS categories also demonstrated a slight increase in AUC for three readers for the combination of mammography and NIBI compared with mammography alone. For the fourth reader, AUC was smaller for the combination compared with mammography alone. Neither for the separate ROC-analyses nor for the ANOVA, significant differences between the two methods were obtained.
Conclusions
The combination of mammography and NIBI did not perform significantly better than mammography alone.
Key Points
The intrinsic contrast provided by optical breast imaging may be inadequate
We found slightly (but nonsignificant) higher accuracy for optical imaging and mammography compared with mammography alone.
Contrast agents might be necessary to improve the performance of optical breast imaging</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Experimental</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hemoglobin</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Infrared imaging systems</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared - methods</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>X-Rays</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhi1U1F2gP6CXylLPBo-djeMj2tIPCYkLSNyiiTMOWW3sxU4q9t83aBfUHnqawzzvO5qHsc8gL0FKc5Wl1FoKCSCUMqVQJ2wJhVYCZFV8YEtpdSWMtcWCneW8kVJaKMxHtlBgC7MCtWQv33rsQsxj7_iOko9pwOCIR8-RB8Ik-uATJmp5kwjzyPsBuz50PO_zSAPHzLHdTMGNfIx8wGGIXcLd057_ppSnzB9Fwv0_C9zGQBfs1OM206fjPGcP32_u1z_F7d2PX-vrW-G0gVEUulRtic6VVaMsGl8akL4tnMOGnCLVmtZZ8qBN6alC165s46oGVq7Rrqn0Oft66N2l-DxRHutNnFKYT9YgFZTaQgUzBQfKpZhzIl_v0vxo2s9Q_eq6PriuZ9f1q-tazZkvx-apGah9T7zJnQF1APK8Ch2lv0__r_UPI3GMuQ</recordid><startdate>20120201</startdate><enddate>20120201</enddate><creator>Collettini, F.</creator><creator>Martin, J. C.</creator><creator>Diekmann, F.</creator><creator>Fallenberg, E.</creator><creator>Engelken, F.</creator><creator>Ponder, S.</creator><creator>Kroencke, T. J.</creator><creator>Hamm, B.</creator><creator>Poellinger, A.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120201</creationdate><title>Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone</title><author>Collettini, F. ; Martin, J. C. ; Diekmann, F. ; Fallenberg, E. ; Engelken, F. ; Ponder, S. ; Kroencke, T. J. ; Hamm, B. ; Poellinger, A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c371t-4362d6acc68b29a7f6710fd4ccabec2e2d7dc9ef1376fe8acd59bc8b15cb3cb83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Experimental</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hemoglobin</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Infrared imaging systems</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared - methods</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>X-Rays</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Collettini, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diekmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallenberg, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelken, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponder, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroencke, T. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamm, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poellinger, A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Collettini, F.</au><au>Martin, J. C.</au><au>Diekmann, F.</au><au>Fallenberg, E.</au><au>Engelken, F.</au><au>Ponder, S.</au><au>Kroencke, T. J.</au><au>Hamm, B.</au><au>Poellinger, A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2012-02-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>350</spage><epage>357</epage><pages>350-357</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
Radiologist reader performance for breast cancer detection using mammography plus Near-Infrared Breast Imaging (NIBI) was compared with mammography alone.
Methods
Two hundred seventy-six consecutive patients with suspected breast lesions underwent both mammography and NIBI. Four blinded radiologists independently first reviewed the mammograms alone. Readers subsequently reviewed the mammograms in combination with NIBI. The diagnostic benefit of NIBI as an adjunct to mammography was determined by performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses for each reader based on BI-RADS categories (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and LOS (level of suspicion) scores. Additionally, a multireader-multicase (ROC) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out.
Results
For the LOS-based analysis, the combination of mammography and NIBI resulted in a slightly larger area under the curve (AUC) for all four readers. The analysis based on BI-RADS categories also demonstrated a slight increase in AUC for three readers for the combination of mammography and NIBI compared with mammography alone. For the fourth reader, AUC was smaller for the combination compared with mammography alone. Neither for the separate ROC-analyses nor for the ANOVA, significant differences between the two methods were obtained.
Conclusions
The combination of mammography and NIBI did not perform significantly better than mammography alone.
Key Points
The intrinsic contrast provided by optical breast imaging may be inadequate
We found slightly (but nonsignificant) higher accuracy for optical imaging and mammography compared with mammography alone.
Contrast agents might be necessary to improve the performance of optical breast imaging</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>21947512</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
ispartof | European radiology, 2012-02, Vol.22 (2), p.350-357 |
issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1021639181 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Area Under Curve Biopsy Breast - pathology Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Diagnostic Radiology Experimental Female Hemoglobin Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods Imaging Infrared imaging systems Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Lasers Mammography Mammography - methods Medical screening Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neuroradiology Patients Radiology Radiology - methods Reproducibility of Results ROC Curve Spectroscopy, Near-Infrared - methods Tomography Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasound Variance analysis X-Rays |
title | Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T21%3A42%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20performance%20of%20a%20near-infrared%20breast%20imaging%20system%20as%20adjunct%20to%20mammography%20versus%20X-ray%20mammography%20alone&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Collettini,%20F.&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=350&rft.epage=357&rft.pages=350-357&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-011-2276-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2693700181%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1021639181&rft_id=info:pmid/21947512&rfr_iscdi=true |