Original Article
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783October 27, 2005
- Abstract
Background
Film mammography has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer in women with radiographically dense breasts. We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitations.
Methods
A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results.
Results
In the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar (difference between methods in the area under the ROC curve, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18). However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years (difference in the area under the curve, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002), women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts on mammography (difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002).
Conclusions
The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00008346.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
ROC Points and Fitted AUCs for Digital and Film Mammography for the 42,760 Women with Fully Verified Breast-Cancer Status (Panel A), the 14,335 Women under the Age of 50 Years (Panel B), the 19,897 Women with Heterogeneously or Extremely Dense Breasts (Panel C), and the 15,803 Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women (Panel D).Table 1
Characteristics of Eligible Women and Women Whose Cancer Status Was Verified.Article Activity
- Article
There is now general agreement that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer among women who are 40 years of age or older.1,2 Meta-analyses of eight large, randomized trials found a reduction in the mortality rate of 16 to 35 percent among women 50 to 69 years of age who were assigned to screening mammography,1 whereas women who were 40 to 49 years of age at entry had a smaller but significant reduction of 15 to 20 percent.1-3
The smaller benefit of screening in younger women is probably due to a lower incidence of breast cancer, more rapidly growing tumors, and greater radiographic density of breast tissue in women less than 50 years of age.4 Greater density reduces the sensitivity of mammography5,6 and increases the risk of breast cancer.7-9 Digital mammography, which was developed in part to address some of the limitations of film mammography,10 separates image acquisition and display, allowing the optimization of both. Image processing of digital data allows the degree of contrast in the image to be manipulated, so that contrast can be increased in the dense areas of the breast with the lowest contrast.11,12
Despite these apparent differences between the two approaches, previous trials have not found digital mammography to be significantly more accurate than film mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.13-17 These studies were limited, however, in that they included only one type of digital detector and had insufficient statistical power to identify relatively small differences in diagnostic accuracy. The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was designed to measure relatively small but potentially clinically important differences in diagnostic accuracy between digital and film mammography.
Methods
A detailed account of the design of DMIST has been published previously.18 This trial was conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. During a two-year period, 49,528 women were recruited to the study at 33 sites. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all sites. All women gave written informed consent. The study was monitored by a data and safety monitoring board. Women who presented for screening mammography at the study sites were eligible to participate unless they reported symptoms, had breast implants, believed they might be pregnant, had undergone mammography for any purpose within the preceding 11 months, or had a history of breast cancer treated with both lumpectomy and radiation.
All participants underwent both digital and film mammography in random order. Five digital-mammography systems were used: the SenoScan (Fischer Medical), the Computed Radiography System for Mammography (Fuji Medical), the Senographe 2000D (General Electric Medical Systems), the Digital Mammography System (Hologic), and the Selenia Full Field Digital Mammography System (Hologic).18
The digital and film examinations for each woman were independently interpreted by two radiologists, one reader for each examination. Readers rated the mammograms using a seven-point malignancy scale suitable for receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis and the classification of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS)19 and recorded whether they recommended that additional tests be performed. A score of 1 on the seven-point malignancy scale indicates a result that is definitely not malignant, a score of 2 findings that are almost definitely not malignant, a score of 3 findings that are probably not malignant, a score of 4 findings that may be malignant, a score of 5 findings that are probably malignant, a score of 6 findings that are almost definitely malignant, and a score of 7 findings that are definitely malignant. A BIRADS score of 0 indicates incomplete data, a score of 1 negative results, a score of 2 benign findings, a score of 3 findings that are probably benign, a score of 4 the presence of a suspicious-appearing abnormality, and a score of 5 findings highly suggestive of cancer.
Readers also rated breast density according to the standard BIRADS scale (extremely dense, heterogeneously dense, scattered fibroglandular densities, and almost completely fat). Radiologists in the United States were all qualified interpreters of mammograms under federal law. Canadian readers met equivalent standards. Each site's lead radiologist was trained in the use of the malignancy scale and trained the site's other readers.
A workup, including a biopsy or aspiration of the suspicious-appearing lesion, was performed if either reader recommended it. A single pathologist or the principal investigator of the study coded all pathological diagnoses on the basis of a review of the cytologic or histologic material or of the local pathology report. All participants were asked to return for a follow-up mammogram at one year.
To establish a reference standard, participants were classified as positive for cancer if breast cancer was pathologically verified within 455 days after the initial study mammogram and negative for cancer if their study records showed negative findings on a pathology report of a biopsy specimen, if the follow-up mammogram at 1 year was normal, or if both criteria were met. The 455-day period gave women more than a year after study entry to undergo follow-up mammography. Some analyses were repeated with the use of an additional reference standard based on information from the first 365 days after initial mammography, an interval used in other publications on screening mammography.5,6,20-26 The status of participants who were classified as neither positive nor negative for cancer was considered indeterminate if they had a breast biopsy with indeterminate results (owing to insufficient material or an inability to interpret the results); had a follow-up mammogram with a BIRADS score19 of 3, 4, or 5; or died during the follow-up period without receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer. All women whose cancer status was indeterminate had no additional pathological or imaging information available. The reference standard for all other participants who did not fall into these three categories was classified as unknown. Participants with either positive or negative reference-standard status made up the fully verified group.
ROC curves for digital and film mammography were estimated from the pooled data across the study with the use of the malignancy score assigned to each woman at the time of screening mammography and before further workup was conducted. The full areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared with the use of the bivariate, binormal model, which accounts for the paired test design.27,28 A corroborating, nonparametric AUC analysis was also performed.29,30 The AUCs were compared in the entire study cohort (primary study aim) as well as in prespecified subgroups of participants (secondary aims). The latter included subgroups defined according to age (younger than 50 years vs. 50 years or older), breast density (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense vs. less dense), menopausal status (premenopausal or perimenopausal vs. postmenopausal), race (white vs. black vs. other), risk of breast cancer (a lifetime risk of ≥25 percent vs. <25 percent, as determined by the Gail model31), and the four digital-machine manufacturers. The Bonferroni procedure was used to account for the 15 multiple comparisons in the subgroup analysis, with a P value of 0.003 or less considered to indicate statistical significance.
For descriptive purposes, estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two methods of mammography were computed on the basis of the seven-point malignancy scale, the BIRADS scale, and the presence or absence of a workup recommendation by the radiologist. For this purpose, the scores for the seven-point malignancy scale were dichotomized as negative (score of 1, 2, or 3) and positive (score of 4, 5, 6, or 7), and the BIRADS ratings were dichotomized as negative (score of 1, 2, or 3) and positive (score of 0, 4, or 5). Results were evaluated for 365 and 455 days of follow-up. McNemar's test was used to compare estimates.
The analysis was confined to the fully verified group. We assessed the effect of missing information on disease status by deriving and comparing estimates of AUCs and sensitivity and specificity using methods for correcting for verification bias in the ROC analysis30 and in the comparisons of sensitivity and specificity.28 Both methods incorporate available information on covariates and assume that the verification status depends only on test outcomes and observed covariates.
Results
Study Population
A total of 49,528 women were enrolled in the trial. Of these, 195 (0.4 percent) were subsequently determined to be ineligible and 194 (0.4 percent) withdrew from the study. In addition, 1489 women (3.0 percent) were excluded from the analysis because the study protocol had not been followed at one participating institution, as determined by on-site audits. Thirty-nine additional women were excluded because the same radiologist interpreted both examinations or the radiologist knew the results of the other examination at the time of interpretation, and 12 were excluded because the examinations were technically inadequate (9 with inadequate film examinations and 3 with inadequate digital examinations). Of the 47,599 remaining women, follow-up information was lacking for 4339 (9.1 percent), and 500 (1.1 percent) had an indeterminate cancer status (474 with follow-up mammograms interpreted as having a BIRADS score of 3, 4, or 5; 20 who had insufficient biopsy specimens or nondiagnostic biopsy findings; 6 who died without receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer; and none of whom had definitive information concerning pathological or imaging results). Thus, we were left with data on 42,760 women (86.7 percent of those eligible) for the primary analysis. All interpreted mammograms other than the listed exclusions were included in the analysis, including those obtained from 203 women who underwent only one type of mammography (188 [0.4 percent] underwent film mammography alone, and 15 [0.04 percent] digital mammography alone, primarily owing to equipment malfunctions). Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of Eligible Women and Women Whose Cancer Status Was Verified. lists the characteristics of the eligible women and the women who were included in the analysis.Interpretation of the Images
Using the dichotomized seven-point malignancy scale, we found that 223 women (0.5 percent) had both positive digital and positive film mammograms, 947 women (2.2 percent) had only positive digital mammograms, 832 women (1.9 percent) had only positive film mammograms, and 40,553 women (94.8 percent) had neither positive film nor positive digital examinations. For the remaining 205 women (0.5 percent), interpretations for either digital or film mammograms were missing (187 negative and 3 positive film examinations and 15 negative digital mammograms).
Using the dichotomized BIRADS scale, we found that 1249 women (2.9 percent) had both positive digital and positive film mammograms, 2399 women (5.6 percent) had only positive digital mammograms, 2416 women (5.7 percent) had only positive film mammograms, and 36,696 (85.8 percent) had neither positive film nor positive digital examinations.
Breast Cancers
A total of 335 breast cancers were diagnosed in the DMIST cohort on the basis of reference-standard information during the 455 days after study entry (Table 2Table 2
Pathological Diagnosis and Stage of 335 Cancers among Women Referred for a Workup after Initial Imaging.). Of these 335 cancers, 254 (75.8 percent) were diagnosed within 365 days after study mammography and 81 (24.2 percent) were diagnosed between 366 and 455 days after study mammography. The histologic findings and the stage of the breast cancers detected by the two methods were similar.Diagnostic Performance of Digital and Film Mammography
The diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar in the fully verified group, as reflected by a mean (±SE) AUC of 0.78±0.02 for digital mammography and of 0.74±0.02 for film mammography (difference in AUC, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18) (Figure 1AFigure 1
ROC Points and Fitted AUCs for Digital and Film Mammography for the 42,760 Women with Fully Verified Breast-Cancer Status (Panel A), the 14,335 Women under the Age of 50 Years (Panel B), the 19,897 Women with Heterogeneously or Extremely Dense Breasts (Panel C), and the 15,803 Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women (Panel D).). The AUC for digital mammography also did not vary significantly from that for film mammography according to race, the risk of breast cancer, or the type of digital machine used.The performance of digital mammography was, however, significantly better than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years, as compared with those who were at least 50 years of age (AUC for digital mammography, 0.84±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.69±0.05; difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002) (Figure 1B), women classified by the readers as having heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts (AUC for digital mammography, 0.78±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.68±0.03; difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003) (Figure 1C), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (AUC for digital mammography, 0.82±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.67±0.05; difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002) (Figure 1D). The results of the AUC comparison in the full cohort and the prespecified subgroups were qualitatively similar to those obtained in the analysis that corrected for potential verification bias. There was no significant difference in the AUC between digital and film mammography among women 50 years of age or older, women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular densities, and postmenopausal women.
Table 3Table 3
Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital and Film Mammography with the Use of the Seven-Point Malignancy Scale after 455 Days of Follow-up. and Table 4Table 4
Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital and Film Mammography with the Use of the BIRADS Score after 365 Days of Follow-up. show estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of each method on the basis of the seven-point malignancy scale after 455 days of follow-up and the BIRADS scale after 365 days of follow-up, dichotomized at each possible threshold. The tables also show digital and film mammography in terms of their sensitivities and specificities, computed at the main thresholds specified above. Detailed results of statistical analyses for sensitivity and specificity with the use of the seven-point malignancy scale at the 365-day follow-up and the BIRADS scale at the 455-day follow-up are provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org). When the comparisons of sensitivities and specificities were adjusted for verification bias, the results were qualitatively similar.Discussion
We found that digital mammography was significantly better than conventional film mammography at detecting breast cancer in young women, premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and women with dense breasts. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between digital and film mammography in the population as a whole or in other predefined subgroups. However, digital mammography offers other advantages over film mammography — namely, easier access to images and computer-assisted diagnosis; improved means of transmission, retrieval, and storage of images; and the use of a lower average dose of radiation without a compromise in diagnostic accuracy.32 We believe that the significant improvement in accuracy in specific subgroups of women justifies the use of digital mammography in these groups.
Our results are understandable in the light of the technical advantages of digital mammography over film mammography. In a digital image, the x-ray transmission can be manipulated to enhance visualization of subtle structural changes in tissue over the entire breast. For mammograms, the most problematic areas are those in which cancers can be hidden by adjacent dense tissue owing to small differences in contrast between lesions and the fibroglandular background. The visibility of a subtle mass or cluster of calcifications present in the image can be increased if the image contrast is adjusted.33,34
DMIST did not measure mortality end points. The assumption inherent in the design of the trial is that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer and that if digital mammography detects cancers at a rate that equals or exceeds that of film mammography, its use in screening is likely to reduce the risk of death by as much as or more than that conferred by film mammography. The evidence supporting this view is given in Table 2. The cancers detected by digital mammography and missed by film mammography in women under the age of 50 years, women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts, and premenopausal and perimenopausal women included many invasive and high-grade in situ cases. These are precisely the lesions that must be detected early to save lives through screening. Neither digital nor film mammography found all the breast cancers in the population. Palpable findings and symptoms that develop after screening should be evaluated even if a woman has negative findings on digital mammography.
Why were the sensitivities of both digital and film mammography measured in this study apparently lower than the sensitivities in other studies?20-23 Estimates of sensitivity depend on the definition used.24 We considered any woman presenting with breast cancer within 455 days after study entry to have been positive for breast cancer at the time of her initial screening mammogram. All women with negative findings on mammography at study entry who had breast cancer at the annual follow-up mammography were thus considered to have false negative results for the analysis. The longer follow-up interval was selected to allow study sites to complete the one-year follow-up and subsequent workup. Some of the cancers detected up to 455 days after study entry were probably present at the time of the initial mammogram, but the use of the 455-day follow-up interval for reporting estimates of diagnostic accuracy is unconventional. Table 4 gives estimates of the diagnostic performance of both digital and film mammography at all cutoff points of the BIRADS scale during the 365-day follow-up period. This allows our estimates of diagnostic performance to be compared with those of others.22,23,25
Although the lead radiologists at each site were trained in the use of the seven-point malignancy scale and they then trained the other radiologists interpreting mammograms, this scale has not been used in other large, published studies. Our results using the BIRADS or follow-up scales can more readily be compared with those published elsewhere.5,6,25 In addition, the percentage of the total population recalled for further workup (14.0 percent) is relatively high, because women underwent two screening tests (digital and film mammography), not just one. The call-back rate of 8.4 percent for both digital and film mammography is similar to or lower than those reported elsewhere for U.S. screening programs.21,26,35
One of the major impediments to the adoption of digital mammography will be its cost: digital systems currently cost approximately 1.5 to 4 times as much as film systems. As part of DMIST, we are performing a formal cost-effectiveness analysis and study of the quality of life of asymptomatic women.
Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (U01CA80098, U01CA80098-S1, U01CA79778, and U0179778-S1).
This article was published at www.nejm.org on September 16, 2005.
We are indebted to the many people at the headquarters of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network and at the recruiting sites for their important contributions to the study; to the radiologists, physicists, and research associates at the clinical sites; to Dennis Fryback, Anna Tosteson, Shahla Masood, Bruce Hillman, Mitchell Schnall, Thomas Caldwell, Stephen King, Charles Apgar, Irene Mahon, Sophia Sabina, Bernadine Dunning, Jamie Downs, Tess Thompson, Heather Wallace, Elaine Pakuris, Donna Hartfeil, Jessie Flaim-Spetsas, Boris Ginsburgs, Sharon Jones, Maria Oh, Rex Welsh, Tim Welsh, Fraser Wilton, Anthony Levering, Anita Murray, Brenda Young, Cheryl Crozier, Mary Kelly Truran, Chris Steward, Thomas Iarocci, Crystal Wright, Janet Vogel, Karan Boparai, Rolma Mancinow, Josephine Schloesser, Sharlene Snowdon, Vish Iyer, JoAnn Stetz, Robert Smith, and the other members of the data and safety monitoring board; to Aili Bloomquist, Gordon Mawdsley, Sam Shen, Mary Brown, Elodia Cole, Beverly Currence, Cherie Kuzmiak, Ann Sherman, Jason Hauser, Dag Pavic, Marcia Koomen, Robert McLelland, Richard Clark, Christopher Parham, Robyn Ellison, Carolyn Kylstra, Sharon Weeks, Rachel Campbell, Emily Wilde, and the following members of the American College of Radiology Biostatistics Center: Lucy Hanna, Alicia Toledano, Ben Herman, Minran Li, Jean Cormack, Prashni Paliwal, Shang-Ying Shiu, and Helga Marques; and to the late Jo-Ann D'Amato for her important work on this project.
Source Information
From the Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, the Biomedical Research Imaging Center, and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill (E.D.P.); the Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I. (C.G., S.A.); the Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago (E.H.); the Departments of Medical Imaging (M.Y., R.J.) and Medical Biophysics (M.Y.), University of Toronto, Toronto; the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston (J.K.B.); the Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Philadelphia (E.F.C.); the Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City (L.L.F.); the Department of Radiology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (L.B.); the Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta (C.D.); and the Department of Radiology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich. (M.R.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Pisano at etta_pisano@med.unc.edu.
Members of the DMIST Investigators Group are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
The following persons served as principal investigators (PIs) or lead physicists (LPs) at the DMIST clinical sites: Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh — W. Poller (PI), J. Och (LP); Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston — J. Baum (PI), R. Zamenhof (LP); Brown University, Providence, R.I. — B. Schepps (PI), D. Shearer (LP); Columbia University, New York — S.J. Smith (PI), E. Nickoloff (LP); Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic, Rochester, N.Y. — E. Bonaccio (PI), M. Zuley (PI), A. Tibold (LP); Emory University, Atlanta — C. D'Orsi (PI), P. Sprawls (LP); Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore — N. Khouri (PI), M. Mahesh (LP); LaGrange Hospital, LaGrange, Ill. — T. Merrill (PI), C. Vyborny (PI), R. Nishikawa (LP); Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Mass. — R.B. Shah (PI), N. Shaikh (LP); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston — D. Georgian-Smith (PI), J. Quattrochi (LP); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York — M. Cohen (PI), R. Fleischman (LP); H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla. — A.P. Romilly (PI), K. Coleman (LP); Monmouth County Hospital, Long Branch, N.J. — M. Staiger (PI), T. Piccoli (LP); Mount Sinai University, New York — S. Feig (PI), Jose Burgos (LP); Northwestern University, Chicago — R.E. Hendrick (PI), E. Berns (LP); Shore Memorial Hospital, Somers Point, N.J. — R. Menghetti (PI), J. Law (LP); Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia — C. Piccoli (PI), A. Maidment (LP), E. Gingold (LP); University of California at Davis, Davis — K. Lindfors (PI), A. Seibert (LP), J. Boone (LP); University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles — L. Bassett (PI), V. Cooper (LP); University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati — M. Mahoney (PI), R. Samaratunga (LP); University of Colorado, Denver — P. Isaacs (PI), J. Lewin (PI), F. Larke (LP); University of Iowa, Iowa City — L. Fajardo (PI), K. Berbaum (LP), M. Madsen (LP); University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — E. Pisano (PI), R.E. Johnston (LP); University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia — E. Conant (PI), M. O'Shea (LP), A. Maidment (LP); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas — W.P. Evans III (PI), M. Hatab (LP); University of Toronto, Toronto — M. Yaffe (PI), A. Bloomquist (LP), G. Mawdsley (LP); University of Virginia, Charlottesville — J. Harvey (PI), M. Williams (LP); University of Washington, Seattle — A. Freitas (PI), K. Kanal (LP); Washington Radiology Associates, Washington, D.C. — L. Glassman (PI), J. Greenberg (PI), M. Goodwill (LP); Washington University, St. Louis — D. Farria (PI), G. Fletcher (LP); William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich. — M. Rebner (PI), D. Bakalyar (LP).
- References
References
1
Humphrey LL ,Helfand M ,Chan BK ,Woolf SH . Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360
Web of Science | Medline2
Institute of Medicine. Saving women's lives: integration and innovation: a framework for progress in early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.
3
Fletcher SW ,Elmore JG . Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672-1680
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Buist DSM ,Porter PL ,Lehman C ,Taplin SH ,White E . Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1432-1440
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Carney PA ,Miglioretti DL ,Yankaskas BC , et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175[Erratum, Ann Intern Med 2003;138:771.]
Web of Science | Medline6
Kerlikowske K ,Grady D ,Barclay J ,Sickles EA ,Ernster V . Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Wolfe JN . Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 1976;37:2486-2492
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Byrne C ,Schairer C ,Wolfe J , et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-1629
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Boyd NF ,Dite GS ,Stone J , et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:886-894
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline10
Shtern F . Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992;183:629-630
Web of Science | Medline11
Pisano ED ,Yaffe MJ ,Hemminger BM , et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:266-280
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Pisano ED ,Yaffe MJ . Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234:353-361
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Cole E ,Pisano ED ,Brown M , et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004;11:879-886
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. IWDM 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, Wis.: Medical Physics Publishing, 2001:475-81.
15
Lewin JM ,D'Orsi CJ ,Hendrick RE , et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:671-677
Web of Science | Medline16
Skaane P ,Young K ,Skjennald A . Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading -- Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877-884
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Skaane P ,Skjennald A . Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program -- the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004;232:197-204
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Pisano ED ,Gatsonis CA ,Yaffe MJ , et al. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236:404-412
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va.: American College of Radiology, 2003.
20
Duffy SW ,Chen HH ,Tabar L ,Fagerberg G ,Paci E . Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:1139-1145
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Poplack SP ,Tosteson AN ,Grove MR ,Wells WA Carney PA . Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000;217:832-840
Web of Science | Medline22
Banks E ,Reeves G ,Beral V , et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2004;329:477-477
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Smith-Bindman R ,Chu P ,Miglioretti DL , et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Rosenberg RD ,Yankaskas BC ,Hunt WC , et al. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:1058-1068
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Ballard-Barbash R ,Taplin SH ,Yankaskas BC , et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-1008
Web of Science | Medline26
Smith-Bindman R ,Ballard-Barbash R ,Miglioretti DL ,Patnick J ,Kerlikowske K . The performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12:50-54
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Metz C, Wang P, Kronman HA. New approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F, ed. Information processing in medical imaging. The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijihoff, 1984.
28
Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York: John Wiley, 2002.
29
DeLong ER ,DeLong DM ,Clarke-Pearson DL . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Toledano AY ,Gatsonis C . Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate. Biometrics 1999;55:488-496
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Gail MH ,Brinton LA ,Byar DP , et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879-1886
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST. Med Phys (in press).
33
Pisano ED ,Cole EB ,Major S , et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 2000;216:820-830
Web of Science | Medline34
Pisano ED ,Cole EB ,Hemminger BM , et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2000;20:1479-1491
Web of Science | Medline35
Ghate SV ,Soo MS ,Baker JA ,Walsh R ,Gimenez EI ,Rosen EL . Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms. Radiology 2005;235:31-35
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (327)
Citing Articles
1
Nehmat Houssami, Karla Kerlikowske. (2012) The Impact of Breast Density on Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Screening. Current Breast Cancer Reports
CrossRef2
Brandon D. Gallas, Heang-Ping Chan, Carl J. D’Orsi, Lori E. Dodd, Maryellen L. Giger, David Gur, Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Charles E. Metz, Kyle J. Myers, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Berkman Sahiner, Alicia Y. Toledano, Margarita L. Zuley. (2012) Evaluating Imaging and Computer-aided Detection and Diagnosis Devices at the FDA. Academic Radiology
CrossRef3
D. Bernardi, M. Pellegrini, S. Michele, P. Tuttobene, C. Fantò, M. Valentini, M. Gentilini, S. Ciatto. (2012) Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification. La radiologia medica
CrossRef4
Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Lucien E.M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Frits H. Jansen, Mike van Beek, Marieke W.J. Louwman. (2012) Lower sensitivity of screening mammography after previous benign breast surgery. International Journal of Cancer 130:1, 122-128
CrossRef5
Michael O Idowu, Linday Bonner Hardy, Rhona J Souers, Raouf E Nakhleh. (2012) Pathologic Diagnostic Correlation With Breast Imaging Findings: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 48 Institutions. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 136:1, 53-60
CrossRef6
Nicholas W. Marshall, Kim Lemmens, Hilde Bosmans. (2012) Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. Medical Physics 39:2, 811
CrossRef7
Irene Ma, Amylou Dueck, Richard Gray, Nabil Wasif, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, Victor Pizzitola, Barbara Pockaj. (2011) Clinical and Self Breast Examination Remain Important in the Era of Modern Screening. Annals of Surgical Oncology
CrossRef8
J. M. Timmers, G. J. den Heeten, E. M. Adang, J. D. Otten, A. L. Verbeek, M. J. Broeders. (2011) Dutch digital breast cancer screening: implications for breast cancer care. The European Journal of Public Health
CrossRef9
Valentina Assi, Jane Warwick, Jack Cuzick, Stephen W. Duffy. (2011) Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
CrossRef10
Michael Stamatakos, Charikleia Stefanaki, Konstantinos Xiromeritis, Niki Pavlerou, Konstantinos Kontzoglou. (2011) Breast cancer in reproductive age. The new plaque or just myth?. Surgical Oncology 20:4, e169-e174
CrossRef11
Rachel L WARD, David SPEAKMAN, Michael A HENDERSON. (2011) The adverse implications of the transition from film to digital mammography for performing surveillance in patients with a history of breast cancer or significant risk factors for the disease. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 7:4, 364-368
CrossRef12
Xavier Bargalló, Gorane Santamaría, Martín Velasco, Montse del Amo, Pedro Arguis, Marta Burrel, Sebastian Capurro. (2011) Mammographic features of screening detected pT1 (a–b) invasive breast cancer using BI-RADS lexicon. European Journal of Radiology
CrossRef13
Rachel Zenuk Garcia, Scott C. Carvajal, Anna V. Wilkinson, Patricia A. Thompson, Jesse N. Nodora, Ian K. Komenaka, Abenaa Brewster, Giovanna I. Cruz, Betsy C. Wertheim, Melissa L. Bondy, María Elena Martínez. (2011) Factors that influence mammography use and breast cancer detection among Mexican-American and African-American women. Cancer Causes & Control
CrossRef14
Monica Morrow, Janet Waters, Elizabeth Morris. (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The Lancet 378:9805, 1804-1811
CrossRef15
John T. Brinton, Lora D. Barke, Mary E. Freivogel, Stacy Jackson, Colin I. O’Donnell, Deborah H. Glueck. (2011) Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in 64,659 Women at a Single High-Volume Mammography Clinic. Academic Radiology
CrossRef16
Paul F. Pinsky, B. Gallas. (2011) Enriched designs for assessing discriminatory performance - analysis of bias and variance. Statistics in Medicinen/a-n/a
CrossRef17
Garth H. Rauscher, Kristi L. Allgood, Steve Whitman, Emily Conant. (2011) Disparities in Screening Mammography Services by Race/Ethnicity and Health Insurance. Journal of Women's Health120104062605001
CrossRef18
Selin Carkaci, Lumarie Santiago, Beatriz E. Adrada, Gary J. Whitman. (2011) Screening for Breast Cancer with Sonography. Seminars in Roentgenology 46:4, 285-291
CrossRef19
Elena B. Elkin, Deborah A. Marshall, Nathalie A. Kulin, Ilia L. Ferrusi, Michael J. Hassett, Uri Ladabaum, Kathryn A. Phillips. (2011) Economic evaluation of targeted cancer interventions: Critical review and recommendations. Genetics in Medicine 13:10, 853-860
CrossRef20
Jay A. Baker, Joseph Y. Lo. (2011) Breast Tomosynthesis. Academic Radiology 18:10, 1298-1310
CrossRef21
A. Evans, P. Whelehan. (2011) Breast screening policy: Are we heading in the right direction?. Clinical Radiology 66:10, 915-919
CrossRef22
M. Mellado, A.M. Osa, A. Murillo, R. Bermejo, A. Burguete, M.J. Pons, N. Erdozain. (2011) Influencia de la mamografía digital en la detección y manejo de microcalcificaciones. Radiología
CrossRef23
C.Z. Uche, W.H. Round, M.J. Cree. (2011) Evaluation of two Compton camera models for scintimammography. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
CrossRef24
Karla Kerlikowske. (2011) Screening mammography in women less than age 50 years. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology1
CrossRef25
F. Collettini, J. C. Martin, F. Diekmann, E. Fallenberg, F. Engelken, S. Ponder, T. J. Kroencke, B. Hamm, A. Poellinger. (2011) Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone. European Radiology
CrossRef26
Warner, Ellen, . (2011) Breast-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 365:11, 1025-1032
Full Text27
Anders Tingberg, Sophia Zackrisson. (2011) Digital mammography and tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics1-10
CrossRef28
Steven A. Narod. (2011) Screening of women at high risk for breast cancer. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 127-130
CrossRef29
Laia Domingo, Anabel Romero, Francesc Belvis, Mar Sánchez, Joana Ferrer, Dolores Salas, Josefa Ibáñez, Alfonso Vega, Francesc Ferrer, M. Soledad Laso, Francesc Macià, Xavier Castells, Maria Sala. (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. European Radiology 21:9, 2020-2028
CrossRef30
Philippe Autier. (2011) Breast cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer 47, S133-S146
CrossRef31
Rianne de Gelder, Jacques Fracheboud, Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk, Gerard den Heeten, André L.M. Verbeek, Mireille J.M. Broeders, Gerrit Draisma, Harry J. de Koning. (2011) Digital mammography screening: Weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 134-140
CrossRef32
Nehmat Houssami, Stefano Ciatto. (2011) The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 123-126
CrossRef33
Carolyn M. Rutter, Amy B. Knudsen, Pari V. Pandharipande. (2011) Computer Disease Simulation Models. Academic Radiology 18:9, 1077-1086
CrossRef34
Anoek H J Verschuur-Maes, Carla H van Gils, Maurice A A J van den Bosch, Peter C De Bruin, Paul J van Diest. (2011) Digital mammography: more microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia. Modern Pathology 24:9, 1191-1197
CrossRef35
Roman Goldenberg, Nathan Peled. (2011) Computer-aided simple triage. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 6:5, 705-711
CrossRef36
Ghada K. Gouhar, Mona A. El-Hariri, Wael E. Lotfy. (2011) Malignant breast tumours: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast-enhancement ratio with histologic grading. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
CrossRef37
C. Romero Castellano, C. Varela Nuñez, R. Cuena Boy, A. Almenar Gil, J.M. Pinto Varela, M. Botella Lopez. (2011) Impact of mammographic breast density on computer-assisted detection (CAD) in a breast imaging department. Radiología (English Edition) 53:5, 456-461
CrossRef38
M. Kalathaki, C. J. Hourdakis, S. Economides, P. Tritakis, N. Kalyvas, G. Simantirakis, G. Manousaridis, I. Kaisas, V. Kamenopoulou. (2011) COMPARISON OF FULL FIELD DIGITAL (FFD) AND COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY (CR) MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEMS IN GREECE. Radiation Protection Dosimetry
CrossRef39
D. A. Berry. (2011) Computer-Assisted Detection and Screening Mammography: Where's the Beef?. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:15, 1139-1141
CrossRef40
Robert M. Nishikawa, Lorenzo L. Pesce. (2011) Fundamental limitations in developing computer-aided detection for mammography. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 648, S251-S254
CrossRef41
Felix Diekmann, Ulrich Bick. (2011) Breast Tomosynthesis. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT, and MRI 32:4, 281-287
CrossRef42
Gelareh Sadigh, Aine M. Kelly, Angela Fagerlin, Ruth C. Carlos. (2011) Patient Preferences in Breast Cancer Screening. Academic Radiology
CrossRef43
Todd A. Alonzo, John T. Brinton, Brandy M. Ringham, Deborah H. Glueck. (2011) Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification. Statistics in Medicine 30:15, 1852-1864
CrossRef44
S. W. Fletcher. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening: A 35-Year Perspective. Epidemiologic Reviews 33:1, 165-175
CrossRef45
Pao-Chu Yu, Yi-Wei Lee, Fong-Fu Chou, Shih-Chung Wu, Chung-Cheng Huang, Shu-Hang Ng, Shyr-Ming Sheen-Chen, Sheung-Fat Ko. (2011) Clustered microcalcifications of intermediate concern detected on digital mammography: Ultrasound assessment. The Breast
CrossRef46
Howard B. Fleishon, Christoph Wald, Ron Korn, Seth Rosenthal, Nancy Fredericks. (2011) The Clinical Research Center: A Vital Part of the ACR Mission. Journal of the American College of Radiology 8:6, 422-427
CrossRef47
Frank W. Samuelson. (2011) Two-sample models with monotonic likelihood ratios for ordinal regression. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 55:3, 223-228
CrossRef48
C. Romero Castellano, C. Varela Nuñez, R. Cuena Boy, A. Almenar Gil, J.M. Pinto Varela, M. Botella Lopez. (2011) Impacto de la densidad mamaria mamográfica en el funcionamiento de un sistema de detección asistido por ordenador en una unidad de patología mamaria. Radiología
CrossRef49
Harpreet Singh, Sumeet Dua. 2011. Supervised Classification of Digital Mammograms. , 285-318.
CrossRef50
Nicholas M. Perry, N. Patani, S. E. Milner, K. Pinker, K. Mokbel, P. C. Allgood, S. W. Duffy. (2011) The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. European Radiology 21:4, 676-682
CrossRef51
Stephanie M. W. Y. Ven, Niculae Mincu, Jean Brunette, Guobin Ma, Mario Khayat, Debra M. Ikeda, Sanjiv S. Gambhir. (2011) Molecular Imaging Using Light-Absorbing Imaging Agents and a Clinical Optical Breast Imaging System—a Phantom Study. Molecular Imaging and Biology 13:2, 232-238
CrossRef52
Felix Diekmann, Martin Freyer, Susanne Diekmann, Eva M. Fallenberg, Thomas Fischer, Ulrich Bick, Alexander Pöllinger. (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. European Journal of Radiology 78:1, 112-121
CrossRef53
R de Gelder, G Draisma, E A M Heijnsdijk, H J de Koning. (2011) Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths. British Journal of Cancer 104:7, 1214-1220
CrossRef54
R. Roman, M. Sala, D. Salas, N. Ascunce, R. Zubizarreta, X. Castells, . (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Annals of Oncology
CrossRef55
G van Schoor, S M Moss, J D M Otten, R Donders, E Paap, G J den Heeten, R Holland, M J M Broeders, A L M Verbeek. (2011) Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. British Journal of Cancer 104:6, 910-914
CrossRef56
Julie A. Guidroz, Carol E.H. Scott-Conner, Ronald J. Weigel. (2011) Management of pregnant women with breast cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology 103:4, 337-340
CrossRef57
J Sabadell, R Figueras, J M Margarit, E Martín, L Terès, F Serra-Graells. (2011) A 70μm × 70μm CMOS digital active pixel sensor for digital mammography and X-ray imaging. Journal of Instrumentation 6:03, C03002-C03002
CrossRef58
Dror Lederman, Bin Zheng, Xingwei Wang, Xiao Hui Wang, David Gur. (2011) Improving Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Using Resonance-Frequency Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Through Fusion of Multiple Classifiers. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 39:3, 931-945
CrossRef59
Regina J. Hooley, Liva Andrejeva, Leslie M. Scoutt. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening and Problem Solving Using Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ultrasound Quarterly 27:1, 23-47
CrossRef60
Arifa Sadaf, Pavel Crystal, Anabel Scaranelo, Thomas Helbich. (2011) Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. European Journal of Radiology 77:3, 457-461
CrossRef61
Gautam S. Muralidhar, Alan C. Bovik, Mehul P. Sampat, Gary J. Whitman, Tamara Miner Haygood, Tanya W. Stephens, Mia K. Markey. (2011) Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 78:2, 280-290
CrossRef62
Neill Patani, Yazan Khaled, Sara Al Reefy, Kefah Mokbel. (2011) Ductal carcinoma in-situ: An update for clinical practice. Surgical Oncology 20:1, e23-e31
CrossRef63
Stephen Feig. (2011) Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography, Ultrasonography, and MRI. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 38:1, 179-196
CrossRef64
Martin J Yaffe. (2011) Developing a quality control program for digital mammography: achievements so far and challenges to come. Imaging in Medicine 3:1, 123-133
CrossRef65
R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, B. Adamietz, M. Meier-Meitinger, E. Wenkel, M. Lell, K. Anders, M. Uder. (2011) Vergleich der Dignitätsbestimmung von mammographischem Mikrokalk mit zwei Systemen zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie unterschiedlicher Detektorauflösung. Der Radiologe 51:2, 126-129
CrossRef66
Marco Bertolini, Andrea Nitrosi, Giovanni Borasi, Andrea Botti, Davide Tassoni, Roberto Sghedoni, Giulio Zuccoli. (2011) Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM). Journal of Digital Imaging 24:1, 58-65
CrossRef67
R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, E. Wenkel, B. Adamietz, M. Lell, K. Anders, M. Uder. (2011) Erste Untersuchungen zur Detektion simulierter mammographischer Läsionen. Der Radiologe 51:2, 130-134
CrossRef68
Donna Taylor, Joanne Lazberger, Angela Ives, Elizabeth Wylie, Christobel Saunders. (2011) Reducing delay in the diagnosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: How imaging can help us. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 55:1, 33-42
CrossRef69
Bin Zheng, Dror Lederman, Jules H. Sumkin, Margarita L. Zuley, Michelle Z. Gruss, Linda S. Lovy, David Gur. (2011) A Preliminary Evaluation of Multi-probe Resonance-frequency Electrical Impedance Based Measurements of the Breast. Academic Radiology 18:2, 220-229
CrossRef70
Daphne Tsoi, Claire Holloway, Louise Bordeleau, Christine Brezden-Masley, Petrina Causer, Ellen Warner. (2011) Willingness of breast cancer survivors to participate in a randomized controlled trial of digital mammography with or without MRI as breast cancer surveillance: A feasibility study. The Breast 20:1, 96-98
CrossRef71
P. Boyle, C. J. Chapman, S. Holdenrieder, A. Murray, C. Robertson, W. C. Wood, P. Maddison, G. Healey, G. H. Fairley, A. C. Barnes, J. F. R. Robertson. (2011) Clinical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Annals of Oncology 22:2, 383-389
CrossRef72
C. Colin, A.-M. Schott. (2011) Re: Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:1, 77-77
CrossRef73
Dror Lederman, Bin Zheng, Xingwei Wang, Jules H. Sumkin, David Gur. (2011) A GMM-based breast cancer risk stratification using a resonance-frequency electrical impedance spectroscopy. Medical Physics 38:3, 1649
CrossRef74
Susan P. Weinstein. 2011. Screening Mammography. , 29-33.
CrossRef75
G. S. Patel, T. Kiuchi, K. Lawler, E. Ofo, G. O. Fruhwirth, M. Kelleher, E. Shamil, R. Zhang, P. R. Selvin, G. Santis, J. Spicer, N. Woodman, C. E. Gillett, P. R. Barber, B. Vojnovic, G. Kéri, T. Schaeffter, V. Goh, M. J. O'Doherty, P. A. Ellis, T. Ng. (2011) The challenges of integrating molecular imaging into the optimization of cancer therapy. Integrative Biology 3:6, 603
CrossRef76
Liane E. Philpotts. (2011) Comprehensive Breast Imaging 2010. Seminars in Roentgenology 46:1, 7-17
CrossRef77
Katja Pinker, Nicholas Perry, S. Vinnicombe, S. Shiel, M. Weber. (2011) Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography. European Radiology 21:1, 18-25
CrossRef78
Weimin Han, Joseph A. Eichholz, Xiaoliang Cheng, Ge Wang. (2011) A Theoretical Framework of X-Ray Dark-Field Tomography. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 71:5, 1557
CrossRef79
Kathryn P. Lowry, Janie M. Lee, Chung Y. Kong, Pamela M. McMahon, Michael E. Gilmore, Jessica E. Cott Chubiz, Etta D. Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Paula D. Ryan, Elissa M. Ozanne. (2011) Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers : A comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancern/a
CrossRef80
Ellen Warner, Petrina A. Causer, John W-N. Wong, Frances C. Wright, Roberta A. Jong, Kimberley A. Hill, Sandra J. Messner, Martin J. Yaffe, Steven A. Narod, Donald B. Plewes. (2011) Improvement in DCIS Detection Rates by MRI Over Time in a High-Risk Breast Screening Study. The Breast Journal 17:1, 9-17
CrossRef81
Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Wikke Setz-Pels, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Adri C. Voogd, Frits H. Jansen, Marieke W.J. Louwman, Alexander V. Tielbeek, Lucien E.M. Duijm. (2011) Malpractice claims following screening mammography in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef82
Nicholas A. Shkumat, Adam Springer, Christopher M. Walker, Eric M. Rohren, Wei T. Yang, Beatriz E. Adrada, Elsa Arribas, Selin Carkaci, Hubert H. Chuang, Lumarie Santiago, Osama R. Mawlawi. (2011) Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: A phantom study. Medical Physics 38:9, 5176
CrossRef83
Kimberly D Gregory, George F Sawaya. (2010) Updated recommendations for breast cancer screening. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:6, 498-505
CrossRef84
Jennifer L. Griffin, Mark D. Pearlman. (2010) Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Average Risk and High Risk. Obstetrics & Gynecology 116:6, 1410-1421
CrossRef85
Danielle J. Haakinson, Chee-Chee H. Stucky, Amylou C. Dueck, Richard J. Gray, Nabil Wasif, Heidi A. Apsey, Barbara Pockaj. (2010) A significant number of women present with palpable breast cancer even with a normal mammogram within 1 year. The American Journal of Surgery 200:6, 712-718
CrossRef86
S. Pruthi, B. S. Gostout, N. M. Lindor. (2010) Identification and Management of Women With BRCA Mutations or Hereditary Predisposition for Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 85:12, 1111-1120
CrossRef87
Carol M. Rumack. (2010) 2010 ACR Presidential Address: Patient-Focused Radiology: Taking Charge of Radiation Dose. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:11, 837-844
CrossRef88
Christian Sohns, Besim Cetin Angic, Samuel Sossalla, Frank Konietschke, Silvia Obenauer. (2010) CAD in full-field digital mammography—influence of reader experience and application of CAD on interpretation of time. Clinical Imaging 34:6, 418-424
CrossRef89
R. Gruber, C.C. Riedl, M. Reisegger, K. Pinker, E. Sturm, F. Semturs, T.H. Helbich. (2010) Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographieplattform. Der Radiologe 50:11, 999-1007
CrossRef90
E. D. Pisano. (2010) Mode of Detection and Secular Time for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. JNCI Monographs 2010:41, 142-144
CrossRef91
Mari Yakabe, Shuji Sakai, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Yoshio Matsuo, Takeshi Kamitani, Taro Setoguchi, Mayumi Cho, Masafumi Masuda, Masayuki Sasaki. (2010) Effect of Dose Reduction on the Ability of Digital Mammography to Detect Simulated Microcalcifications. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:5, 520-526
CrossRef92
Chantal Ongeval, Andre Steen, Gretel Putte, Federica Zanca, Hilde Bosmans, Guy Marchal, Erik Limbergen. (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?. European Radiology 20:10, 2307-2314
CrossRef93
M Dirk Robinson, C A Toth, J Y Lo, S Farsiu. (2010) Efficient Fourier-Wavelet Super-Resolution. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 19:10, 2669-2681
CrossRef94
Adriana M. J. Bluekens, Nico Karssemeijer, David Beijerinck, Jan J. M. Deurenberg, Ruben E. Engen, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Gerard J. Heeten. (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. European Radiology 20:9, 2067-2073
CrossRef95
Emil M. deGoma, Ronald P. Karlsberg, Debra R. Judelson, Matthew J. Budoff. (2010) The Underappreciated Impact of Heart Disease. Women's Health Issues 20:5, 299-303
CrossRef96
Edward A. Sickles. (2010) The Use of Breast Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 859-878
CrossRef97
Rachel F. Brem, Lauren R. Rechtman. (2010) Nuclear Medicine Imaging of the Breast: A Novel, Physiologic Approach to Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 1055-1074
CrossRef98
Karen K. Lindfors, John M. Boone, Mary S. Newell, Carl J. D'Orsi. (2010) Dedicated Breast Computed Tomography: The Optimal Cross-Sectional Imaging Solution?. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 1043-1054
CrossRef99
Melchor Sentís. (2010) Imaging diagnosis of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 123:S1, 11-13
CrossRef100
Stephen Feig. (2010) Cost-Effectiveness of Mammography, MRI, and Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 879-891
CrossRef101
Margarita L. Zuley. (2010) The Basics and Implementation of Digital Mammography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 893-901
CrossRef102
S. L. Bailey, B. M. Sigal, S. K. Plevritis. (2010) A Simulation Model Investigating the Impact of Tumor Volume Doubling Time and Mammographic Tumor Detectability on Screening Outcomes in Women Aged 40-49 Years. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:16, 1263-1271
CrossRef103
Gail S. Lebovic, Alan Hollingsworth, Stephen A. Feig. (2010) Risk assessment, screening and prevention of breast cancer: A look at cost-effectiveness. The Breast 19:4, 260-267
CrossRef104
Lorenzo L. Pesce, Charles E. Metz, Kevin S. Berbaum. (2010) On the Convexity of ROC Curves Estimated from Radiological Test Results. Academic Radiology 17:8, 960-968.e4
CrossRef105
P Kok, AG Pitman, JN Cawson, S Gledhill, S Kremer, J Lawson, K Mehta, V Mercuri, D Shnier, R Taft, L Zentner. (2010) ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography readers and their memory performance have no correlation with each other. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 54:4, 315-324
CrossRef106
Jon M. Greif. (2010) Mammographic screening for breast cancer: An invited review of the benefits and costs. The Breast 19:4, 268-272
CrossRef107
Otto Zhou, Xiomara Calderon-Colon. 2010. Carbon Nanotube-Based Field Emission X-Ray Technology. , 417-437.
CrossRef108
Laurie Margolies. (2010) Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer: 2010. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 77:4, 398-404
CrossRef109
Monica Morrow. (2010) Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Screening, Diagnosis, and Eligibility for Breast-conserving Surgery: Promises and Pitfalls. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 19:3, 475-492
CrossRef110
Takayoshi Uematsu. (2010) Digital mammography in Japan. Breast Cancer 17:3, 158-158
CrossRef111
Takayuki Yamada. (2010) Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan. Breast Cancer 17:3, 163-168
CrossRef112
Michael Phillips, Renee N Cataneo, Christobel Saunders, Peter Hope, Peter Schmitt, James Wai. (2010) Volatile biomarkers in the breath of women with breast cancer. Journal of Breath Research 4:2, 026003
CrossRef113
Yanpeng Li, Ann Poulos, Donald McLean, Mary Rickard. (2010) A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. European Journal of Radiology 74:3, e122-e131
CrossRef114
Shu-Ting Luo, Bor-Wen Cheng. (2010) Diagnosing Breast Masses in Digital Mammography Using Feature Selection and Ensemble Methods. Journal of Medical Systems
CrossRef115
Morgan W. Nields. (2010) FDA & Digital MammographyWhy Has FDA Required Full Field Digital Mammography Systems to Be Regulated as Potentially Dangerous Devices for More Than 10 Years?. Academic Radiology 17:5, 652-657
CrossRef116
Angela Ives, Christobel Saunders. (2010) Breast cancer associated with a concurrent or subsequent pregnancy. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:3, 357-369
CrossRef117
David Gur, Andriy I. Bandos, Howard E. Rockette, Margarita L. Zuley, Christiane M. Hakim, Denise M. Chough, Marie A. Ganott, Jules H. Sumkin. (2010) Is an ROC-type Response Truly Always Better Than a Binary Response in Observer Performance Studies?. Academic Radiology 17:5, 639-645
CrossRef118
Junji Shiraishi, Hiroyuki Abe, Katsuhiro Ichikawa, Robert A. Schmidt, Kunio Doi. (2010) Observer Study for Evaluating Potential Utility of a Super-High-Resolution LCD in the Detection of Clustered Microcalcifications on Digital Mammograms. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:2, 161-169
CrossRef119
Marina E. Giurescu, Tilina Hu, Olufolajimi Obembe. (2010) Role of Imaging in Breast Cancer Detection. AAOHN Journal 58:4, 131-134
CrossRef120
Anna Liza M. Antonio, Catherine M. Crespi. (2010) Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 120:3, 539-546
CrossRef121
Joseph A. Sparano, Etta D. Pisano, Julia R. White, Kelly K. Hunt, Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Edith A. Perez, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Julie R. Gralow, Robert L. Comis. (2010) Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 120:2, 273-284
CrossRef122
T. Svahn, I. Andersson, D. Chakraborty, S. Svensson, D. Ikeda, D. Fornvik, S. Mattsson, A. Tingberg, S. Zackrisson. (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 139:1-3, 113-117
CrossRef123
Tamara Miner Haygood, Jihong Wang, Deanna Lane, Eva Galvan, E. Neely Atkinson, Tanya Stephens, Gary J. Whitman. (2010) Why Does It Take Longer to Read Digital Than Film-Screen Screening Mammograms? A Partial Explanation. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:2, 170-180
CrossRef124
R. Wilson, P. Skaane, C. De Wolf, F. Thibault, P. Taylor. (2010) E2. Current issues in breast screening. European Journal of Cancer Supplements 8:3, 4-6
CrossRef125
Jason Madan, Andrew Rawdin, Matt Stevenson, Paul Tappenden. (2010) A Rapid-Response Economic Evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy Breast Cancer Screening Program Extension via a Plausible Bounds Approach. Value in Health 13:2, 215-221
CrossRef126
Kellie L. Mathis, Tanya L. Hoskin, Judy C. Boughey, Brian S. Crownhart, Kathy R. Brandt, Celine M. Vachon, Clive S. Grant, Amy C. Degnim. (2010) Palpable Presentation of Breast Cancer Persists in the Era of Screening Mammography. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 210:3, 314-318
CrossRef127
J. Anthony Seibert. (2010) Advances in Computed Radiography: Dual-Side Readout. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:2, 154-157
CrossRef128
C. Colin, V. Prince, P.J. Valette. (2010) Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer?. European Journal of Radiology
CrossRef129
Yi-Ta Wu, Chuan Zhou, Heang-Ping Chan, Chintana Paramagul, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Caroline Plowden Daly, Julie A. Douglas, Yiheng Zhang, Berkman Sahiner, Jiazheng Shi, Jun Wei. (2010) Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms. Medical Physics 37:1, 391
CrossRef130
S.A. Feig. (2010) Estimated Risk of Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer From Mammographic Screening for Young BRCA Mutation CarriersBerrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, et al (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Natl Cancer Inst, Rockville, MD; et al) J Natl Cancer Inst 101:205-209, 2009§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 21:1, 40-42
CrossRef131
Carol H. Lee, D. David Dershaw, Daniel Kopans, Phil Evans, Barbara Monsees, Debra Monticciolo, R. James Brenner, Lawrence Bassett, Wendie Berg, Stephen Feig, Edward Hendrick, Ellen Mendelson, Carl D'Orsi, Edward Sickles, Linda Warren Burhenne. (2010) Breast Cancer Screening With Imaging: Recommendations From the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the Use of Mammography, Breast MRI, Breast Ultrasound, and Other Technologies for the Detection of Clinically Occult Breast Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:1, 18-27
CrossRef132
P. Timberg, M. Båth, I. Andersson, S. Mattsson, A. Tingberg, M. Ruschin. (2010) In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Medical Physics 37:11, 5618
CrossRef133
Hendrik J. Teertstra, Claudette E. Loo, Maurice A. A. J. Bosch, Harm Tinteren, Emiel J. T. Rutgers, Sara H. Muller, Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs. (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. European Radiology 20:1, 16-24
CrossRef134
Hans Junkermann. (2009) Mammadiagnostik zur Brustkrebsfrüherkennung. Onkopipeline 2:4, 146-152
CrossRef135
A Bordoni, N M Probst-Hensch, L Mazzucchelli, A Spitale. (2009) Assessment of breast cancer opportunistic screening by clinical–pathological indicators: a population-based study. British Journal of Cancer 101:11, 1925-1931
CrossRef136
M. Thill, C. Dittmer, B. Ruhland, K. Diedrich, D. Fischer. (2009) Früherkennung des Mammakarzinoms. Der Gynäkologe 42:11, 833-840
CrossRef137
(2009) Surveillance après traitement de cancer du sein (hors mutation). Oncologie 11:11, 589-610
CrossRef138
R. Schulz-Wendtland, M. Fuchsjäger, T. Wacker, K.-P. Hermann. (2009) Digital mammography: An update. European Journal of Radiology 72:2, 258-265
CrossRef139
David Ansell, Paula Grabler, Steven Whitman, Carol Ferrans, Jacqueline Burgess-Bishop, Linda Rae Murray, Ruta Rao, Elizabeth Marcus. (2009) A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago. Cancer Causes & Control 20:9, 1681-1688
CrossRef140
Vladimir Egorov, Thomas Kearney, Stanley B. Pollak, Chand Rohatgi, Noune Sarvazyan, Suren Airapetian, Stephanie Browning, Armen Sarvazyan. (2009) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions by mechanical imaging. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 118:1, 67-80
CrossRef141
L.J. Hamilton, A.J. Evans, E.J. Cornford, E.A. Rakha, I.O. Ellis, W.D. Foulkes. (2009) Will MRI screening deliver the expected survival advantage in BRCA 1 carriers?. Clinical Radiology 64:11, 1045-1047
CrossRef142
C D Arvanitis, R Speller. (2009) Quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography for contrast medium kinetics studies. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:20, 6041-6064
CrossRef143
William C. Wood. (2009) Should the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy be increasing as it is?. The Breast 18, S93-S95
CrossRef144
Florian J.F. Engelken, Henning Meyer, Ralf Juran, Ulrich Bick, Eva Fallenberg, Felix Diekmann. (2009) Intra-individual Comparison of Average Glandular Dose of Two Digital Mammography Units using Different Anode/Filter Combinations. Academic Radiology 16:10, 1272-1280
CrossRef145
Srila Samphao, Amanda J. Wheeler, Elizabeth Rafferty, James S. Michaelson, Michelle C. Specht, Michele A. Gadd, Kevin S. Hughes, Barbara L. Smith. (2009) Diagnosis of breast cancer in women age 40 and younger: delays in diagnosis result from underuse of genetic testing and breast imaging. The American Journal of Surgery 198:4, 538-543
CrossRef146
Brigid K. Killelea, Alyssa Gillego, Laurie J. Kirstein, Juhi Asad, Marina Shpilko, Avni Shah, Sheldon Feldman, Susan K. Boolbol. (2009) George Peters Award: How does breast-specific gamma imaging affect the management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer?. The American Journal of Surgery 198:4, 470-474
CrossRef147
Shuhong Wang, Tracy Merlin, Florian Kreisz, Paul Craft, Janet E. Hiller. (2009) Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 33:5, 430-436
CrossRef148
Melvin J. Silverstein, Abram Recht, Michael D. Lagios, Ira J. Bleiweiss, Peter W. Blumencranz, Terri Gizienski, Steven E. Harms, Jay Harness, Roger J. Jackman, V. Suzanne Klimberg, Robert Kuske, Gary M. Levine, Michael N. Linver, Elizabeth A. Rafferty, Hope Rugo, Kathy Schilling, Debu Tripathy, Pat W. Whitworth, Shawna C. Willey. (2009) Image-Detected Breast Cancer: State-of-the-Art Diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 209:4, 504-520
CrossRef149
J. M. Park. (2009) Understanding and Application of Different Breast Imaging Studies. Imaging Decisions MRI 13:3-4, 105-111
CrossRef150
Jeffrey A. Tice, Karla Kerlikowske. (2009) Screening and Prevention of Breast Cancer in Primary Care. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 36:3, 533-558
CrossRef151
Larissa Nekhlyudov, Clarence H. Braddock. (2009) An Approach to Enhance Communication about Screening Mammography in Primary Care. Journal of Women's Health 18:9, 1403-1412
CrossRef152
Brijesh Verma, Peter McLeod, Alan Klevansky. (2009) A novel soft cluster neural network for the classification of suspicious areas in digital mammograms. Pattern Recognition 42:9, 1845-1852
CrossRef153
William R. Hendee, Anthony B. Wolbarst. 2009. Biomedical Imaging Technologies. .
CrossRef154
Michael O’Connor, Deborah Rhodes, Carrie Hruska. (2009) Molecular breast imaging. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 9:8, 1073-1080
CrossRef155
S. Taylor-Phillips, M. G. Wallis, A. G. Gale. (2009) Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?. European Radiology 19:8, 1890-1896
CrossRef156
Anders Lönneborg, Jørgen Aarøe, Vanessa Dumeaux, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale. (2009) Found in transcription: gene expression and other novel blood biomarkers for the early detection of breast cancer. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 9:8, 1115-1123
CrossRef157
Sanjay Thulkar, Smriti Hari. (2009) Present Role of Mammography/Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Management. PET Clinics 4:3, 213-225
CrossRef158
Hubert Thierens, Hilde Bosmans, Nico Buls, An De Hauwere, Klaus Bacher, Jurgen Jacobs, Peter Clerinx. (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. European Journal of Radiology 70:3, 539-548
CrossRef159
T Kao, D Connor, F A Dilmanian, L Faulconer, T Liu, C Parham, E D Pisano, Z Zhong. (2009) Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:10, 3247-3256
CrossRef160
Takayoshi Uematsu. (2009) Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography. Japanese Journal of Radiology 27:4, 168-175
CrossRef161
Stephanie M. W. Y. Ven, Sjoerd G. Elias, Andrea J. Wiethoff, Marjolein Voort, Tim Nielsen, Bernhard Brendel, Claas Bontus, Falk Uhlemann, Rami Nachabe, Rik Harbers, Michiel Beek, Leon Bakker, Martin B. Mark, Peter Luijten, Willem P. Th. M. Mali. (2009) Diffuse optical tomography of the breast: preliminary findings of a new prototype and comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. European Radiology 19:5, 1108-1113
CrossRef162
L E M Duijm, M W J Louwman, J H Groenewoud, L V van de Poll-Franse, J Fracheboud, J W Coebergh. (2009) Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome. British Journal of Cancer 100:6, 901-907
CrossRef163
I A Elbakri, B J McIntosh, D W Rickey. (2009) Physical characterization and performance comparison of active- and passive-pixel CMOS detectors for mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:6, 1743-1755
CrossRef164
Jinshan Tang, R.M. Rangayyan, Jun Xu, I. El Naqa, Yongyi Yang. (2009) Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer With Mammography: Recent Advances. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 13:2, 236-251
CrossRef165
Adam F. Prasanphanich, Lauren Retzloff, Stephanie R. Lane, Prasant K. Nanda, Gary L. Sieckman, Tammy L. Rold, Lixin Ma, Said D. Figueroa, Samantha V. Sublett, Timothy J. Hoffman. (2009) In vitro and in vivo analysis of [64Cu-NO2A-8-Aoc-BBN(7–14)NH2]: a site-directed radiopharmaceutical for positron-emission tomography imaging of T-47D human breast cancer tumors
. Nuclear Medicine and Biology 36:2, 171-181
CrossRef166
Melissa C. Hulvat, Nora M. Hansen, Jacqueline S. Jeruss. (2009) Multidisciplinary Care for Patients with Breast Cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America 89:1, 133-176
CrossRef167
Stephen A. Feig. (2009) Advances in Breast Imaging: 1989-2008. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:1, 29-34
CrossRef168
Mitsutomi Ishiyama, Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu, Mari Kikuchi, Yukihisa Saida, Sonoe Hiramatsu. (2009) Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography. Breast Cancer 16:1, 58-61
CrossRef169
A. Karellas, S. Vedantham. (2009) Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast PhantomKrug KB, Stützer H, Schröder R, et al (Univ of Cologne Med School, Germany; Univ of Cologne, Germany) AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:W80-W88, 2008§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:3, 271-273
CrossRef170
Ge Wang, Wenxiang Cong, Haiou Shen, Yu Zou. (2009) Varying Collimation for Dark-Field Extraction. International Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2009, 1-7
CrossRef171
S. R. Amendolia, M. G. Bisogni, P. Delogu, M. E. Fantacci, G. Paternoster, V. Rosso, A. Stefanini. (2009) Characterization of a mammographic system based on single photon counting pixel arrays coupled to GaAs x-ray detectors. Medical Physics 36:4, 1330
CrossRef172
Federica Zanca, Jurgen Jacobs, Chantal Van Ongeval, Filip Claus, Valerie Celis, Catherine Geniets, Veerle Provost, Herman Pauwels, Guy Marchal, Hilde Bosmans. (2009) Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography. Medical Physics 36:3, 765
CrossRef173
David W. Lee, Paul E. Stang, George A. Goldberg, Merle Haberman. (2009) Resource Use and Cost of Diagnostic Workup of Women with Suspected Breast Cancer. The Breast Journal 15:1, 85-92
CrossRef174
Tadaoki Morimoto, Taeko Nagao, Kenji Okazaki, Misako Kira, Yasushi Nakagawa, Akira Tangoku. (2009) Current status of breast cancer screening in the world. Breast Cancer 16:1, 2-9
CrossRef175
Michael K. O’Connor, Georgia Tourassi, Colin G. Orton. (2009) Molecular breast imaging will soon replace x-ray mammography as the imaging modality of choice for women at high risk with dense breasts. Medical Physics 36:5, 1463
CrossRef176
Richard J. Santen. 2009. , 659.
CrossRef177
A Mohd. Khuzi, R Besar, WMD Wan Zaki, NN Ahmad. (2009) Identification of masses in digital mammogram using gray level co-occurrence matrices. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 5:3,
CrossRef178
Kwon Su Chon, Jeong Gon Park, Hyun Hwa Son, Sung Hoon Kang, Seong Hoon Park, Hye-won Kim, Hun Soo Kim, Kwon-Ha Yoon. (2009) Usefulness of a Small-Field Digital Mammographic Imaging System Using Parabolic Polycapillary Optics as a Diagnostic Imaging Tool: a Preliminary Study. Korean Journal of Radiology 10:6, 604
CrossRef179
Michael S. Sabel. 2009. Principles of Breast Cancer Screening. , 19-40.
CrossRef180
Ali Fatemi-Ardekani, Colm Boylan, Michael D. Noseworthy. (2009) Identification of breast calcification using magnetic resonance imaging. Medical Physics 36:12, 5429
CrossRef181
Adam B. Nover, Shami Jagtap, Waqas Anjum, Hakki Yegingil, Wan Y. Shih, Wei-Heng Shih, Ari D. Brooks. (2009) Modern Breast Cancer Detection: A Technological Review. International Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2009, 1-14
CrossRef182
Xin Qian, Ramya Rajaram, Xiomara Calderon-Colon, Guang Yang, Tuyen Phan, David S. Lalush, Jianping Lu, Otto Zhou. (2009) Design and characterization of a spatially distributed multibeam field emission x-ray source for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis. Medical Physics 36:10, 4389
CrossRef183
J. S. Sandhu, R. A. Schmidt, P. J. La Rivière. (2009) Full-field acoustomammography using an acousto-optic sensor. Medical Physics 36:6, 2324
CrossRef184
C. D. Arvanitis, S. E. Bohndiek, J. Blakesley, A. Olivo, R. D. Speller. (2009) Signal and noise transfer properties of CMOS based active pixel flat panel imager coupled to structured CsI:Tl. Medical Physics 36:1, 116
CrossRef185
E.A. Sickles. (2009) Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital versus Film Mammography: Exploratory Analysis of Selected Population Subgroups in DMISTPisano ED, for the DMIST Investigators Group (The UNC-Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Ctr, and the Biomedical Res Imaging Ctr of the Univ of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill; et al) Radiology 246:376-383, 2008§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:4, 396-399
CrossRef186
Koichi Chida, Yuka Komatsu, Masahiro Sai, Asuka Nakagami, Takayuki Yamada, Takuya Yamashita, Issei Mori, Tadashi Ishibashi, Shin Maruoka, Masayuki Zuguchi. (2009) Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain. Clinical Imaging 33:1, 7-10
CrossRef187
Yunfeng Cui, Yongqiang Tan, Binsheng Zhao, Laura Liberman, Rakesh Parbhu, Jennifer Kaplan, Maria Theodoulou, Clifford Hudis, Lawrence H. Schwartz. (2009) Malignant lesion segmentation in contrast-enhanced breast MR images based on the marker-controlled watershed. Medical Physics 36:10, 4359
CrossRef188
Richard J. Santen. 2009. Breast Cancer. , 659-686.
CrossRef189
Sachiko Yamada, Takashi Ueguchi, Naoki Mihara, Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Yoshiharu Sukenobu, Mitsuru Komizu. (2009) Observer Performance of PACS-oriented Digitized Mammography in the Detection of Fibrils, Microcalcifications, and Masses: a Phantom Study. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 65:5, 620-625
CrossRef190
Yoshiharu Higashida et al.. (2009) Investigation of Imaging Properties of Digital Imaging Systems. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 65:7, 992-1001
CrossRef191
Z. Milosevic, V. Karapandzic-Plesinac, A. Jovicevic, V. Vukovic, J. Vucicevic, T. Pavlovic, N. Borojevic. (2009) Diagnosis of breast cancer in women age 40 and younger: Mammography and breast ultrasound. Acta chirurgica iugoslavica 56:4, 77-81
CrossRef192
Michiel Kallenberg, Nico Karssemeijer. (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in full-field digital mammography using screen-film mammograms for training. Physics in Medicine and Biology 53:23, 6879-6891
CrossRef193
Alexander Poellinger, Jan C. Martin, Steven L. Ponder, Torsten Freund, Bernd Hamm, Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann. (2008) Near-infrared Laser Computed Tomography of the Breast. Academic Radiology 15:12, 1545-1553
CrossRef194
Ingvar Andersson, Debra M. Ikeda, Sophia Zackrisson, Mark Ruschin, Tony Svahn, Pontus Timberg, Anders Tingberg. (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. European Radiology 18:12, 2817-2825
CrossRef195
Rosalyn Katy F Hogben. (2008) Screening for breast cancer in England: a review. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20:6, 545-549
CrossRef196
David Gur. (2008) Retrospective Analyses of Pivotal Prospective Studies With Population Segmentation—Statistically Based Inferences and Clinical Relevance. Academic Radiology 15:11, 1458-1462
CrossRef197
Lucien E. M. Duijm, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Jacques Fracheboud, Menno L. Plaisier, Rudi M. H. Roumen, B. Martin Ineveld, Mike Beek, Harry J. Koning. (2008) Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000–2005. European Radiology 18:11, 2390-2397
CrossRef198
Takayuki Yamada, Akihiko Suzuki, Nachiko Uchiyama, Noriaki Ohuchi, Shoki Takahashi. (2008) Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. European Radiology 18:11, 2363-2369
CrossRef199
Hui Li, Maryellen L. Giger, Yading Yuan, Weijie Chen, Karla Horsch, Li Lan, Andrew R. Jamieson, Charlene A. Sennett, Sanaz A. Jansen. (2008) Evaluation of Computer-aided Diagnosis on a Large Clinical Full-field Digital Mammographic Dataset. Academic Radiology 15:11, 1437-1445
CrossRef200
Akihiko Suzuki, Shinichi Kuriyama, Masaaki Kawai, Masakazu Amari, Motohiro Takeda, Takanori Ishida, Koji Ohnuki, Yoshikazu Nishino, Ichiro Tsuji, Daisuke Shibuya, Noriaki Ohuchi. (2008) Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Science 99:11, 2264-2267
CrossRef201
George H. Sakorafas, David R. Farley, George Peros. (2008) Recent advances and current controversies in the management of DCIS of the breast. Cancer Treatment Reviews 34:6, 483-497
CrossRef202
Bruce J. Hillman, Constantine Gatsonis. (2008) The American College of Radiology Imaging Network—Clinical Trials of Diagnostic Imaging and Image-Guided Treatment. Seminars in Oncology 35:5, 460-469
CrossRef203
Gerd Schueller, Christopher C. Riedl, Reinhold Mallek, Klemens Eibenberger, Herbert Langenberger, Elisabeth Kaindl, Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini, Margaretha Rudas, Thomas H. Helbich. (2008) Image Quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: Full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. European Journal of Radiology 67:3, 487-496
CrossRef204
Neill Patani, Bruno Cutuli, Kefah Mokbel. (2008) Current management of DCIS: a review. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 111:1, 1-10
CrossRef205
V. Egorov, A.P. Sarvazyan. (2008) Mechanical Imaging of the Breast. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 27:9, 1275-1287
CrossRef206
C CHEN, W TZENG, C TSAI, C MAK, C CHEN, M CHOU. (2008) Adjusting Mammography—Audit Recommendations in a Lower-Incidence Taiwanese Population. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:9, 978-985
CrossRef207
S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, B. M. Geller. (2008) Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100:15, 1082-1091
CrossRef208
Leonard Fass. (2008) Imaging and cancer: A review. Molecular Oncology 2:2, 115-152
CrossRef209
Vineeta Singh, Christobel Saunders, Liz Wylie, Anita Bourke. (2008) New diagnostic techniques for breast cancer detection. Future Oncology 4:4, 501-513
CrossRef210
S.-Y. Shiu, C. Gatsonis. (2008) The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366:1874, 2313-2333
CrossRef211
Akihiko Shiraishi. (2008) Current state of digital mammography. Breast Cancer 15:3, 194-199
CrossRef212
M. Funke, C. Villena. (2008) Bildgebende Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms. Der Radiologe 48:6, 601-614
CrossRef213
Deborah Axelrod, Julia Smith, Davida Kornreich, Eve Grinstead, Baljit Singh, Joan Cangiarella, Amber A. Guth. (2008) Breast Cancer in Young Women. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 206:6, 1193-1203
CrossRef214
Per Skaane, Felix Diekmann, Corinne Balleyguier, Susanne Diekmann, Jean-Charles Piguet, Kari Young, Michael Abdelnoor, Loren Niklason. (2008) Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. European Radiology 18:6, 1134-1143
CrossRef215
Vijay M. Rao, David C. Levin, Laurence Parker, Andrea J. Frangos. (2008) Recent Trends in Mammography Utilization in the Medicare Population: Is There a Cause for Concern?. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:5, 652-656
CrossRef216
N. M. Perry, P. C. Allgood, S. W. Duffy, K. Mokbel. (2008) Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes & Control 19:4, 435-435
CrossRef217
S.H. Heywang-Köbrunner, D. Möhrling, A. Hacker. (2008) Bildgebende und interventionelle Mammadiagnostik. Der Onkologe 14:5, 478-489
CrossRef218
B. Sigal-Zafrani, K. Muller, C. El Khoury, P.C. Varoutas, C. Buron, A. Vincent-Salomon, S. Alran, A. Livartowski, S. Neuenschwander, R.J. Salmon. (2008) Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications – Analysis of 1009 cases. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 34:4, 377-381
CrossRef219
U. Bick, F. Diekmann, E.M. Fallenberg. (2008) Workflow in der digitalen Screeningmammographie. Der Radiologe 48:4, 335-344
CrossRef220
R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, T. Wacker, W. Bautz. (2008) Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographie. Der Radiologe 48:4, 324-334
CrossRef221
T HAYGOOD, G WHITMAN, E ATKINSON, R NIKOLOVA, S SANDOVAL, P DEMPSEY. (2008) Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:4, 585-592
CrossRef222
Alexis V. Nees. (2008) Digital Mammography. Academic Radiology 15:4, 401-407
CrossRef223
Anthony B. Miller. (2008) Implementation of Colon Cancer Screening: Techniques, Costs, and Barriers. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 37:1, 83-95
CrossRef224
F. Shannoun, J. M. Schanck, A. Scharpantgen, M. C. Wagnon, M. Ben Daoud, C. Back. (2008) Organisational aspects of mammography screening in digital settings: first experiences of Luxembourg. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 129:1-3, 195-198
CrossRef225
Gary L. Corino, Peter W. French. (2008) Diagnosis of breast cancer by X-ray diffraction of hair. International Journal of Cancer 122:4, 847-856
CrossRef226
J BAKER. (2008) 4–13 Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:4, 357-357
CrossRef227
Y Faridah. (2008) Digital versus screen film mammography: a clinical comparison. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 4:4,
CrossRef228
Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Yulei Jiang. (2008) Anniversary Paper: Evaluation of medical imaging systems. Medical Physics 35:2, 645
CrossRef229
Jeffrey A. Tice, Mitchell D. Feldman. (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 107:2, 157-165
CrossRef230
M LINVER. (2008) 4–19 Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:4, 364-365
CrossRef231
Einar Vigeland, Herman Klaasen, Tor Audun Klingen, Solveig Hofvind, Per Skaane. (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. European Radiology 18:1, 183-191
CrossRef232
Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham. (2008) Breast cancer imaging: A perspective for the next decade. Medical Physics 35:11, 4878
CrossRef233
S. Diekmann, F. Diekmann. (2008) Mammographiescreening in Deutschland. Der Radiologe 48:1, 17-25
CrossRef234
Bin Zheng, Margarita L. Zuley, Jules H. Sumkin, Victor J. Catullo, Gordon S. Abrams, Grace Y. Rathfon, Denise M. Chough, Michelle Z. Gruss, David Gur. (2008) Detection of breast abnormalities using a prototype resonance electrical impedance spectroscopy system: A preliminary study. Medical Physics 35:7, 3041
CrossRef235
M ZIVIAN. 2008. The Accuracy of Diagnostic Radiology. , 109-118.
CrossRef236
A FISCHMANN. 2008. Microcalcification in Breast LesionsRadiography and Histopathology. , 383-392.
CrossRef237
J LEWIN. 2008. Digital Mammography. , 455-458.
CrossRef238
T BUTTON. 2008. Detection of Breast CancerDynamic Infrared Imaging. , 571-580.
CrossRef239
A FISCHMANN. 2008. Full-field Digital Mammography versus Film-screen Mammography. , 349-357.
CrossRef240
Neal Handel. (2007) The Effect of Silicone Implants on the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120:Supplement 1, 81S-93S
CrossRef241
Boel Heddson, Katarina Rönnow, Magnus Olsson, David Miller. (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. European Journal of Radiology 64:3, 419-425
CrossRef242
Felix Diekmann, Ulrich Bick. (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. European Radiology 17:12, 3086-3092
CrossRef243
C DORSI, M NEWELL. (2007) Digital Mammography: Clinical Implementation and Clinical Trials. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 236-242
CrossRef244
J LEUNG. (2007) Letter from the Guest Editor. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 207-207
CrossRef245
J LEWIN, L NIKLASON. (2007) Advanced Applications of Digital Mammography: Tomosynthesis and Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 243-252
CrossRef246
L BASSETT. (2007) 3–15 Comparison of Calcification Specificity in Digital Mammography Using Soft-Copy Display Versus Screen-Film Mammography. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:3, 255-255
CrossRef247
Evelyn Wenkel, Christian Geppert, Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland, Michael Uder, Berthold Kiefer, Werner Bautz, Rolf Janka. (2007) Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Breast MRI. Academic Radiology 14:9, 1077-1083
CrossRef248
Etta D. Pisano, Margarita Zuley, Janet K. Baum, Helga S. Marques. (2007) Issues to Consider in Converting to Digital Mammography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 813-830
CrossRef249
Wendie A. Berg. (2007) Beyond Standard Mammographic Screening: Mammography at Age Extremes, Ultrasound, and MR Imaging. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 895-906
CrossRef250
Nicole Urban, Gary M. Longton, Andrea D. Crowe, Mariann J. Drucker, Constance D. Lehman, Susan Peacock, Kimberly A. Lowe, Steve B. Zeliadt, Marcia A. Gaul. (2007) Computer-Assisted Mammography Feedback Program (CAMFP). Academic Radiology 14:9, 1036-1042
CrossRef251
E RAFFERTY. (2007) Digital Mammography: Novel Applications. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 831-843
CrossRef252
J. C. P. Heggie. (2007) Technical developments in radiology in Australasia dating from 1977. Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 30:3, 160-177
CrossRef253
Stephen J. Glick. (2007) Breast CT. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 9:1, 501-526
CrossRef254
Carla Boetes, Ritse M Mann. (2007) Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI. The Lancet 370:9586, 459-460
CrossRef255
S. Pruthi, K. R. Brandt, A. C. Degnim, M. P. Goetz, E. A. Perez, C. A. Reynolds, P. J. Schomberg, G. K. Dy, J. N. Ingle. (2007) A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Breast Cancer, Part 1: Prevention and Diagnosis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82:8, 999-1012
CrossRef256
William Hobbins, William Amalu, Jonathan Head, Robert Elliot. 2007. Infrared Imaging of the Breast. , 9-1-9-22.
CrossRef257
Robson, Mark, Offit, Kenneth, . (2007) Management of an Inherited Predisposition to Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 357:2, 154-162
Full Text258
Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann. (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?. European Radiology 17:8, 1931-1942
CrossRef259
(2007) Computer-Aided Screening Mammography. New England Journal of Medicine 357:1, 83-85
Full Text260
J WEI, L HADJIISKI, B SAHINER, H CHAN, J GE, M ROUBIDOUX, M HELVIE, C ZHOU, Y WU, C PARAMAGUL. (2007) Computer-Aided Detection Systems for Breast Masses: Comparison of Performances on Full-Field Digital Mammograms and Digitized Screen-Film Mammograms1. Academic Radiology 14:6, 659-669
CrossRef261
G. M. SHARANGPANI, A. S. JOSHI, K. PORTER, A. S. DESHPANDE, S. KEYHANI, G. A. NAIK, A. S. GHOLAP, S. H. BARSKY. (2007) Semi-automated imaging system to quantitate estrogen and progesterone receptor immunoreactivity in human breast cancer. Journal of Microscopy 226:3, 244-255
CrossRef262
D GUR. (2007) Objectively Measuring and Comparing Performance Levels of Diagnostic Imaging Systems and Practices. Academic Radiology 14:6, 641-642
CrossRef263
D GLUECK, M LAMB, J LEWIN, E PISANO. (2007) Two-Modality Mammography May Confer an Advantage Over Either Full-Field Digital Mammography or Screen-Film Mammography1. Academic Radiology 14:6, 670-676
CrossRef264
R WAGNER, C METZ, G CAMPBELL. (2007) Assessment of Medical Imaging Systems and Computer Aids: A Tutorial Review. Academic Radiology 14:6, 723-748
CrossRef265
Richard P. A. Norman, D. Gareth Evans, Douglas F. Easton, Kenneth C. Young. (2007) The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49. The European Journal of Health Economics 8:2, 137-144
CrossRef266
Aparna S. Joshi, Girish M. Sharangpani, Kyle Porter, Sedigheh Keyhani, Carl Morrison, Amitabha S. Basu, Gauri A. Gholap, Abhi S. Gholap, Sanford H. Barsky. (2007) Semi-automated imaging system to quantitate Her-2/neu membrane receptor immunoreactivity in human breast cancer. Cytometry Part A 71A:5, 273-285
CrossRef267
Felix Diekmann, Alexander Sommer, Ruediger Lawaczeck, Susanne Diekmann, Hubertus Pietsch, Ulrich Speck, Bernd Hamm, Ulrich Bick. (2007) Contrast-to-Noise Ratios of Different Elements in Digital Mammography. Investigative Radiology 42:5, 319-325
CrossRef268
C CARREIRAGOMEZ, J MARTINEZCANTARERO, D GOMEZSANTOS, C POLANCOSANCHEZ, P NARANJOGARCIA, J DELLLANOSENARIS. (2007) Revisión de la evidencia científica sobre la aplicación clínica de la mamografía digital. Radiología 49:3, 145-156
CrossRef269
E SAMEI, A POOLLA, M ULISSEY, J LEWIN. (2007) Digital Mammography: Comparative Performance of Color LCD and Monochrome CRT Displays1. Academic Radiology 14:5, 539-546
CrossRef270
I A Elbakri, M M Tesic, Quanren Xiong. (2007) Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:8, 2171-2183
CrossRef271
Takeshi Kamitani, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Hiroyasu Soeda, Yoshio Matsuo, Takashi Okafuji, Shuji Sakai, Akio Furuya, Masamitsu Hatakenaka, Nobuhide Ishii, Hiroshi Honda. (2007) Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. European Radiology 17:5, 1365-1371
CrossRef272
Hall, Ferris M., . (2007) Breast Imaging and Computer-Aided Detection. New England Journal of Medicine 356:14, 1464-1466
Full Text273
Peter R. Snoeren, Nico Karssemeijer. (2007) Gray-scale and geometric registration of full-field digital and film-screen mammograms. Medical Image Analysis 11:2, 146-156
CrossRef274
J PARIKH. (2007) 1–21 Digital and Screen-Film Mammography: Comparison of Image Acquisition and Interpretation Times. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:1, 49-49
CrossRef275
Smith, Robert A., . (2007) The Evolving Role of MRI in the Detection and Evaluation of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:13, 1362-1364
Full Text276
Lehman, Constance D., Gatsonis, Constantine, Kuhl, Christiane K., Hendrick, R. Edward, Pisano, Etta D., Hanna, Lucy, Peacock, Sue, Smazal, Stanley F., Maki, Daniel D., Julian, Thomas B., DePeri, Elizabeth R., Bluemke, David A., Schnall, Mitchell D., . (2007) MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:13, 1295-1303
Full Text277
G Gennaro, F Ferro, G Contento, F Fornasin, C di Maggio. (2007) Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:5, 1387-1407
CrossRef278
M ZULEY. (2007) How to Transition to Digital Mammography. Journal of the American College of Radiology 4:3, 178-183
CrossRef279
Joseph N. Gitlin, Anand K. Narayan, Chad A. Mitchell, Ali M. Akmal, David J. Eisner, Lindsy M. Peterson, Daisy Nie, Tyler R. McClintock. (2007) A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations. Journal of Digital Imaging 20:1, 42-52
CrossRef280
R RANA, Y JIANG, R SCHMIDT, R NISHIKAWA, B LIU. (2007) Independent Evaluation of Computer Classification of Malignant and Benign Calcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammograms1. Academic Radiology 14:3, 363-370
CrossRef281
Jun Ge, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Berkman Sahiner, Jun Wei, Mark A Helvie, Chuan Zhou, Heang-Ping Chan. (2007) Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:4, 981-1000
CrossRef282
Chantal Van Ongeval, Hilde Bosmans, André Van Steen. (2007) Current status of digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Current Opinion in Internal Medicine 6:1, 77-84
CrossRef283
WE Hadden. (2007) Recommendations for the surveillance of young women at increased risk for breast cancer. Australasian Radiology 51:1, 1-11
CrossRef284
Kerlikowske, Karla, . (2007) The Mammogram That Cried Wolfe. New England Journal of Medicine 356:3, 297-300
Full Text285
Boyd, Norman F., Guo, Helen, Martin, Lisa J., Sun, Limei, Stone, Jennifer, Fishell, Eve, Jong, Roberta A., Hislop, Greg, Chiarelli, Anna, Minkin, Salomon, Yaffe, Martin J., . (2007) Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:3, 227-236
Full Text286
DC Spelic, RV Kaczmarek, M Hilohi, S Belella. (2007) United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 3:2,
CrossRef287
P. Monnin, D. Gutierrez, S. Bulling, D. Guntern, F. R. Verdun. (2007) A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems. Medical Physics 34:3, 906
CrossRef288
Lia Bartella, Clare S. Smith, D. David Dershaw, Laura Liberman. (2007) Imaging Breast Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:1, 45-67
CrossRef289
Mark Ruschin, Pontus Timberg, Magnus Båth, Bengt Hemdal, Tony Svahn, Rob S. Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Ingvar Andersson, Sören Mattsson, Dev P. Chakraborty, Anders Tingberg. (2007) Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: Free response human observer studies. Medical Physics 34:2, 400
CrossRef290
Hiroshi Fujita. (2007) Short Survey on Current Status of Computer-aided Diagnosis (CAD). Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 63:12, 1389-1395
CrossRef291
Benjamin Djulbegovic, Gary H Lyman. (2006) Screening mammography at 40–49 years: regret or no regret?. The Lancet 368:9552, 2035-2037
CrossRef292
Anke Thomas, Sherko Kümmel, Florian Fritzsche, Mathias Warm, Bernd Ebert, Bernd Hamm, Thomas Fischer. (2006) Real-Time Sonoelastography Performed in Addition to B-Mode Ultrasound and Mammography: Improved Differentiation of Breast Lesions?. Academic Radiology 13:12, 1496-1504
CrossRef293
Nicola Roche. (2006) Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer in young women. The Breast 15, S71-S75
CrossRef294
R SAUNDERS, E SAMEI, J BAKER, D DELONG, M SOO, R WALSH, E PISANO, C KUZMIAK, D PAVIC. (2006) Comparison of LCD and CRT Displays Based on Efficacy for Digital Mammography1. Academic Radiology 13:11, 1317-1326
CrossRef295
Gisella Gennaro, Cosimo Maggio. (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. European Radiology 16:11, 2559-2566
CrossRef296
C KAUFMAN, L JACOBSON, B BACHMAN, L KAUFMAN. (2006) Digital documentation of the physical examination: moving the clinical breast exam to the electronic medical record. The American Journal of Surgery 192:4, 444-449
CrossRef297
B SEO, E PISANO, C KUZMIAK, M KOOMEN, D PAVIC, R MCLELLAND, Y LEE, E COLE, D MATTINGLY, J LEE. (2006) The Positive Predictive Value for Diagnosis of Breast CancerFull-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in the Diagnostic Mammographic Population. Academic Radiology 13:10, 1229-1235
CrossRef298
M. L. Bondy, L. A. Newman. (2006) Assessing Breast Cancer Risk: Evolution of the Gail Model. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98:17, 1172-1173
CrossRef299
Kefah Mokbel, Bruno Cutuli. (2006) Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. The Lancet Oncology 7:9, 756-765
CrossRef300
Olivia Pagani, Aron Goldhirsch. (2006) Breast cancer in young women: climbing for progress in care and knowledge. Women's Health 2:5, 717-732
CrossRef301
Eliot Siegel, Elizabeth Krupinski, Ehsan Samei, Michael Flynn, Katherine Andriole, Bradley Erickson, Jerry Thomas, Aldo Badano, J. Anthony Seibert, Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Digital Mammography Image Quality: Image Display. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 615-627
CrossRef302
Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Digital Mammography: What Next?. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 583-585
CrossRef303
Johan G. Blickman, Hanna Pohjonen. (2006) New Developments in the EU With Regard to Digital Image Management. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 635-638
CrossRef304
Barbara M. Rothenberg, Kathleen M. Ziegler, Naomi Aronson. (2006) Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Synopsis: Full-Field Digital Mammography. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 586-588
CrossRef305
Mark B. Williams, Martin J. Yaffe, Andrew D.A. Maidment, Melissa C. Martin, J. Anthony Seibert, Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Image Quality in Digital Mammography: Image Acquisition. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 589-608
CrossRef306
Kunio Doi. (2006) Diagnostic imaging over the last 50 years: research and development in medical imaging science and technology. Physics in Medicine and Biology 51:13, R5-R27
CrossRef307
Robert Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Jay Baker, David Delong. (2006) Simulation of Mammographic Lesions. Academic Radiology 13:7, 860-870
CrossRef308
Sankararaman Suryanarayanan, Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham, Ioannis Sechopoulos. (2006) Theoretical analysis of high-resolution digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 51:12, 3041-3055
CrossRef309
C. Ongeval, H. Bosmans, A. Steen, K. Joossens, V. Celis, M. Goethem, I. Verslegers, K. Nijs, F. Rogge, G. Marchal. (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. European Radiology 16:6, 1360-1366
CrossRef310
William Hobbins, William Amalu, Jonathan Head, Robert Elliott. 2006. Infrared Imaging of the Breast — An Overview. , 25-1-25-21.
CrossRef311
Georgia D. Tourassi. 2006. Computer Assisted Radiology (CAR). .
CrossRef312
Kwan-Hoong Ng, Noriah Jamal. 2006. Mammography. .
CrossRef313
Nehmat Houssami, Les Irwig, Stefano Ciatto. (2006) Radiological surveillance of interval breast cancers in screening programmes. The Lancet Oncology 7:3, 259-265
CrossRef314
D. David Dershaw. (2006) Status of Mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: Digital versus Film. The Breast Journal 12:2, 99-102
CrossRef315
(2006) Digital and Film Mammography. New England Journal of Medicine 354:7, 765-767
Full Text316
R WAGNER. (2006) Toward a Strategy for Consensus Development on a Quantitative Approach to Medical Imaging. Academic Radiology 13:2, 137-139
CrossRef317
Albert Cerussi, Natasha Shah, David Hsiang, Amanda Durkin, John Butler, Bruce J. Tromberg. (2006) In vivo absorption, scattering, and physiologic properties of 58 malignant breast tumors determined by broadband diffuse optical spectroscopy. Journal of Biomedical Optics 11:4, 044005
CrossRef318
G. Hajdok, J. Yao, J. J. Battista, I. A. Cunningham. (2006) Signal and noise transfer properties of photoelectric interactions in diagnostic x-ray imaging detectors. Medical Physics 33:10, 3601
CrossRef319
Jennifer A. Segui, Wei Zhao. (2006) Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: Validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments. Medical Physics 33:10, 3711
CrossRef320
Hans Bornefalk. (2006) Implications of unchanged detection criteria with CAD as second reader of mammograms. Medical Physics 33:4, 922
CrossRef321
Martin J. Yaffe, Gary T. Barnes, Colin G. Orton. (2006) Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Medical Physics 33:11, 3979
CrossRef322
Hong Gwan Seo. (2006) Screening for Early Detection of Cancers II. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 49:6, 515
CrossRef323
Jun Ge, Berkman Sahiner, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Heang-Ping Chan, Jun Wei, Mark A. Helvie, Chuan Zhou. (2006) Computer aided detection of clusters of microcalcifications on full field digital mammograms. Medical Physics 33:8, 2975
CrossRef324
R.L. Birdwell. (2006) Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. Yearbook of Diagnostic Radiology 2006, 59-61
CrossRef325
Euclid Seeram. (2005) Digital Mammography: An Overview. Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology 36:4, 15-23
CrossRef326
Dershaw, D. David, . (2005) Film or Digital Mammographic Screening?. New England Journal of Medicine 353:17, 1846-1847
Full Text327
Hak Hee Kim. (2005) Soft Copy Digital Mammography. Korean Journal of Radiology 6:4, 206
CrossRef
- Letters
