We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2002 September
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to compare full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of breast cancer in a screening population.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy.
RESULTS: Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy.
RESULTS: Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app