Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value
To compare the performance of screen-film and digital mammography in the assessment of screen-detected breast lesions. A series of 100 consecutive mammographic screen-detected lesions (65 masses, 6 architectural distortions, 29 microcalcifications) deserving diagnostic assessment and judged to have...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of radiology 2005-08, Vol.55 (2), p.258-263 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 263 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 258 |
| container_title | European journal of radiology |
| container_volume | 55 |
| creator | Bonardi, Rita Ambrogetti, Daniela Ciatto, Stefano Gentile, Elisabetta Lazzari, Barbara Mantellini, Paola Nannelli, Enrica Ristori, Elena Sottani, Laura Turco, Marco Rosselli Del |
| description | To compare the performance of screen-film and digital mammography in the assessment of screen-detected breast lesions.
A series of 100 consecutive mammographic screen-detected lesions (65 masses, 6 architectural distortions, 29 microcalcifications) deserving diagnostic assessment and judged to have a low positive predictive value underwent screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography by a Fuji computed radiography system (FCR) (double exposure, same view, without removing compression) of the corresponding breast. Three sets of images (SFM, hard copy and soft copy FCR) were read, blind of assessment outcome, by three experienced radiologists. For the three different imaging modalities a contrast-detail analysis, dose evaluation and diagnostic accuracy by means of ROC analysis were performed. At the end of the diagnostic workup all suspicious cases (20) underwent surgical biopsy and were histologically confirmed as cancers and the cases which were negative or benign at assessment (80) were followed up for a period of 12–20 months. During the follow-up period two more cases proved to be cancers at subsequent examinations.
Contrast-detail analysis gives better image quality for FCR compared to SFM at the same delivered dose, whilst in ROC analysis the SFM (AUC 0.7158), hard copy FCR (AUC 0.7404) and soft copy FCR (AUC 0.7501) (
χ
2
=
1.30,
p
=
0.5220) are equivalent.
FCR has a diagnostic performance equivalent to SFM in the assessment of screen-detected lesions with a low positive predictive value for cancer and it may be safely included in routine screening practice. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68063312</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0720048X04003341</els_id><sourcerecordid>68063312</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-8bbbc9a9b722495bfdc5f6a8336a6798061d763ca1f78d73e0be1223b306a26c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE2P0zAQhi0EYsvCL0BCvsAtZWy3dnLggCq-pJW4gMTNcuzJ1lUSF0-SVf897rYSnDjNh555NXoYey1gLUDo94c1HrILawmwKZs1gH7CVqI2sjJGmqdsBUZCBZv61w17QXQAgO2mkc_ZjdCgtNiaFZt3aVxwnGIaXc8XzDQTD_E-TmUc3DCk--yO-xOPI5_2yF3BThSJp46Tz4hjFXBCP2HgPVKJIf4Qpz3v0wM_JopTXJAfM4boH9vF9TO-ZM861xO-utZb9vPzpx-7r9Xd9y_fdh_vKq9qM1V127a-cU1rpNw027YLfttpVyulnTZNDVoEo5V3ojN1MAqhRSGlahVoJ7VXt-zdJfeY0-8ZabJDJI9970ZMM1ldIpQSsoDqAvqciDJ29pjj4PLJCrBn2_ZgH23bs-3zstguV2-u8XM7YPh7c9VbgLdXwJF3fZfd6CP9wzW1AhCF-3DhsMhYImZLPuLoi7Vc3NqQ4n8f-QP7f6El</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68063312</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Bonardi, Rita ; Ambrogetti, Daniela ; Ciatto, Stefano ; Gentile, Elisabetta ; Lazzari, Barbara ; Mantellini, Paola ; Nannelli, Enrica ; Ristori, Elena ; Sottani, Laura ; Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</creator><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Rita ; Ambrogetti, Daniela ; Ciatto, Stefano ; Gentile, Elisabetta ; Lazzari, Barbara ; Mantellini, Paola ; Nannelli, Enrica ; Ristori, Elena ; Sottani, Laura ; Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</creatorcontrib><description>To compare the performance of screen-film and digital mammography in the assessment of screen-detected breast lesions.
A series of 100 consecutive mammographic screen-detected lesions (65 masses, 6 architectural distortions, 29 microcalcifications) deserving diagnostic assessment and judged to have a low positive predictive value underwent screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography by a Fuji computed radiography system (FCR) (double exposure, same view, without removing compression) of the corresponding breast. Three sets of images (SFM, hard copy and soft copy FCR) were read, blind of assessment outcome, by three experienced radiologists. For the three different imaging modalities a contrast-detail analysis, dose evaluation and diagnostic accuracy by means of ROC analysis were performed. At the end of the diagnostic workup all suspicious cases (20) underwent surgical biopsy and were histologically confirmed as cancers and the cases which were negative or benign at assessment (80) were followed up for a period of 12–20 months. During the follow-up period two more cases proved to be cancers at subsequent examinations.
Contrast-detail analysis gives better image quality for FCR compared to SFM at the same delivered dose, whilst in ROC analysis the SFM (AUC 0.7158), hard copy FCR (AUC 0.7404) and soft copy FCR (AUC 0.7501) (
χ
2
=
1.30,
p
=
0.5220) are equivalent.
FCR has a diagnostic performance equivalent to SFM in the assessment of screen-detected lesions with a low positive predictive value for cancer and it may be safely included in routine screening practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0720-048X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7727</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16036157</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EJRADR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Shannon: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Diagnosis ; Digital mammography ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Mammary gland diseases ; Mammography - methods ; Medical sciences ; Phantoms, Imaging ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>European journal of radiology, 2005-08, Vol.55 (2), p.258-263</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-8bbbc9a9b722495bfdc5f6a8336a6798061d763ca1f78d73e0be1223b306a26c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-8bbbc9a9b722495bfdc5f6a8336a6798061d763ca1f78d73e0be1223b306a26c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16983001$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16036157$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Rita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambrogetti, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciatto, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gentile, Elisabetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazzari, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mantellini, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nannelli, Enrica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ristori, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sottani, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</creatorcontrib><title>Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value</title><title>European journal of radiology</title><addtitle>Eur J Radiol</addtitle><description>To compare the performance of screen-film and digital mammography in the assessment of screen-detected breast lesions.
A series of 100 consecutive mammographic screen-detected lesions (65 masses, 6 architectural distortions, 29 microcalcifications) deserving diagnostic assessment and judged to have a low positive predictive value underwent screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography by a Fuji computed radiography system (FCR) (double exposure, same view, without removing compression) of the corresponding breast. Three sets of images (SFM, hard copy and soft copy FCR) were read, blind of assessment outcome, by three experienced radiologists. For the three different imaging modalities a contrast-detail analysis, dose evaluation and diagnostic accuracy by means of ROC analysis were performed. At the end of the diagnostic workup all suspicious cases (20) underwent surgical biopsy and were histologically confirmed as cancers and the cases which were negative or benign at assessment (80) were followed up for a period of 12–20 months. During the follow-up period two more cases proved to be cancers at subsequent examinations.
Contrast-detail analysis gives better image quality for FCR compared to SFM at the same delivered dose, whilst in ROC analysis the SFM (AUC 0.7158), hard copy FCR (AUC 0.7404) and soft copy FCR (AUC 0.7501) (
χ
2
=
1.30,
p
=
0.5220) are equivalent.
FCR has a diagnostic performance equivalent to SFM in the assessment of screen-detected lesions with a low positive predictive value for cancer and it may be safely included in routine screening practice.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Digital mammography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Mammary gland diseases</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0720-048X</issn><issn>1872-7727</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE2P0zAQhi0EYsvCL0BCvsAtZWy3dnLggCq-pJW4gMTNcuzJ1lUSF0-SVf897rYSnDjNh555NXoYey1gLUDo94c1HrILawmwKZs1gH7CVqI2sjJGmqdsBUZCBZv61w17QXQAgO2mkc_ZjdCgtNiaFZt3aVxwnGIaXc8XzDQTD_E-TmUc3DCk--yO-xOPI5_2yF3BThSJp46Tz4hjFXBCP2HgPVKJIf4Qpz3v0wM_JopTXJAfM4boH9vF9TO-ZM861xO-utZb9vPzpx-7r9Xd9y_fdh_vKq9qM1V127a-cU1rpNw027YLfttpVyulnTZNDVoEo5V3ojN1MAqhRSGlahVoJ7VXt-zdJfeY0-8ZabJDJI9970ZMM1ldIpQSsoDqAvqciDJ29pjj4PLJCrBn2_ZgH23bs-3zstguV2-u8XM7YPh7c9VbgLdXwJF3fZfd6CP9wzW1AhCF-3DhsMhYImZLPuLoi7Vc3NqQ4n8f-QP7f6El</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>Bonardi, Rita</creator><creator>Ambrogetti, Daniela</creator><creator>Ciatto, Stefano</creator><creator>Gentile, Elisabetta</creator><creator>Lazzari, Barbara</creator><creator>Mantellini, Paola</creator><creator>Nannelli, Enrica</creator><creator>Ristori, Elena</creator><creator>Sottani, Laura</creator><creator>Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value</title><author>Bonardi, Rita ; Ambrogetti, Daniela ; Ciatto, Stefano ; Gentile, Elisabetta ; Lazzari, Barbara ; Mantellini, Paola ; Nannelli, Enrica ; Ristori, Elena ; Sottani, Laura ; Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-8bbbc9a9b722495bfdc5f6a8336a6798061d763ca1f78d73e0be1223b306a26c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Digital mammography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Mammary gland diseases</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bonardi, Rita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambrogetti, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciatto, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gentile, Elisabetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazzari, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mantellini, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nannelli, Enrica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ristori, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sottani, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bonardi, Rita</au><au>Ambrogetti, Daniela</au><au>Ciatto, Stefano</au><au>Gentile, Elisabetta</au><au>Lazzari, Barbara</au><au>Mantellini, Paola</au><au>Nannelli, Enrica</au><au>Ristori, Elena</au><au>Sottani, Laura</au><au>Turco, Marco Rosselli Del</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value</atitle><jtitle>European journal of radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Radiol</addtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>258</spage><epage>263</epage><pages>258-263</pages><issn>0720-048X</issn><eissn>1872-7727</eissn><coden>EJRADR</coden><abstract>To compare the performance of screen-film and digital mammography in the assessment of screen-detected breast lesions.
A series of 100 consecutive mammographic screen-detected lesions (65 masses, 6 architectural distortions, 29 microcalcifications) deserving diagnostic assessment and judged to have a low positive predictive value underwent screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography by a Fuji computed radiography system (FCR) (double exposure, same view, without removing compression) of the corresponding breast. Three sets of images (SFM, hard copy and soft copy FCR) were read, blind of assessment outcome, by three experienced radiologists. For the three different imaging modalities a contrast-detail analysis, dose evaluation and diagnostic accuracy by means of ROC analysis were performed. At the end of the diagnostic workup all suspicious cases (20) underwent surgical biopsy and were histologically confirmed as cancers and the cases which were negative or benign at assessment (80) were followed up for a period of 12–20 months. During the follow-up period two more cases proved to be cancers at subsequent examinations.
Contrast-detail analysis gives better image quality for FCR compared to SFM at the same delivered dose, whilst in ROC analysis the SFM (AUC 0.7158), hard copy FCR (AUC 0.7404) and soft copy FCR (AUC 0.7501) (
χ
2
=
1.30,
p
=
0.5220) are equivalent.
FCR has a diagnostic performance equivalent to SFM in the assessment of screen-detected lesions with a low positive predictive value for cancer and it may be safely included in routine screening practice.</abstract><cop>Shannon</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>16036157</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0720-048X |
| ispartof | European journal of radiology, 2005-08, Vol.55 (2), p.258-263 |
| issn | 0720-048X 1872-7727 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68063312 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Chi-Square Distribution Diagnosis Digital mammography Female Genital system. Mammary gland Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Mammary gland diseases Mammography - methods Medical sciences Phantoms, Imaging Predictive Value of Tests Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Tumors |
| title | Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T01%3A35%3A46IST&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=Conventional%20versus%20digital%20mammography%20in%20the%20analysis%20of%20screen-detected%20lesions%20with%20low%20positive%20predictive%20value&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=Bonardi,%20Rita&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=258&rft.epage=263&rft.pages=258-263&rft.issn=0720-048X&rft.eissn=1872-7727&rft.coden=EJRADR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.10.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68063312%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=68063312&rft_id=info:pmid/16036157&rft_els_id=S0720048X04003341&rfr_iscdi=true |